Frank Cox wrote:
I always read mailing lists backwards, assuming that that anything
important will be quoted in subsequent posts. It wasn't.
Apparently that's the wrong way to do it, then. If you want to follow a
discussion or thread, I suggest that you read it from start to finish and you
will find that you become less confused.
I'm only interested in the parts that are important - and generally only
the ones that are sill unresolved by the time I read them.
Not that I tracked down and followed the link, I still have no idea what
you are talking about. If someone claims they can't find something it
doesn't necessarily make them a liar even if you think that something
exists.
In the specific case that you refer to, there was nothing left to "find". I
initially refuted his un-founded assumption with general statements and
subsequently presented documented and completely reliable evidence directly.
So how does that establish that he was lying when he previously said he
hadn't found it? And what response did you expect after making that
accusation?
Again, you really should attempt to follow mailing list and newsgroup threads
in order, from start to finish, if you wish to be able to understand the
subject matter under discussion. You will have a much better understanding of
what is going on if you do so.
Is there some reason I should care about this? Where's the technical point?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
