robin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
...
>> It's a _reasonably_ good design. The error really
>> _is_ considerably less common than many others. That's not a
>> reason to ignore it though. The discussion is valid. Many of your
>> arguments against changing have not been.
>
>It only appear s that way. You need to give them
>more than superficial analysis.
That's what I did. That's why I rejected them. Superficially
they might seem almost valid.
>That (**) has been discussed already. The **, and the remainder
>of the email is beginning to sound like a gramophone record,
>so I'm just omitting it.
Good plan. Since none your new comments were valid either,
you could have left those out too.
--
J. Giles
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|