🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6960004@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM> fritz@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (Gary Fritz) writes:
>
>Chris, I honestly don't understand how you could make this statement if
>you'd really been reading the comments Richard has been making.  

I have finally found Gary's message on our weird newsreader. I don't
want to repeat what I said in my earlier message, but there are a
couple of points I must answer.

>It has
>been quite clear to me that (4 issues stated)

I entirely agree with you.

>you have almost never replied to the technical issues Richard raised.
>When you did, it appeared to me that you completely ignored or misunderstood
>the point of Richard's posting.  

I dispute that strongly. On a number of occasions I've answered point
by point. Where I haven't, the usual reason is that it concerns part
of the standard that I have not personally been concerned with.
Indeed on a number of occasions I side with Richard. My usual
reaction on those occasions has been to list out the correspondence
on lineprinter paper and thrust it under the nose of the committee
member concerned. I don't see the point of commenting on those
occasions. My mailer regularly reminds me of the thousands of dollars
we have to pay (real money in Europe) for these messages.

On other occasions, Richard's got a point, and I hope I've taken it.
I haven't always (tho I have quite often) said "I agree". In
particular, when Richard has repeated himself I've usually ignored
it. You may not have seen an earlier message.

The fact that I can't keep up with Richard is, I suspect, not my
problem only.

My one attempt at a joke seems to have misfired badly. But please
restore the :-)!

Chris Moss.