On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 06:13:58AM +0900, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> On 8/1/06, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:43:30AM +0900, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> >> Ok, I've tried my bit at patience. I am certain now that you are being
> >> intentionally stubborn and difficult.
> >
> >You're wrong, and you can go screw yourself if you're going to start
> >assuming malicious intent on my part just because you refuse to actually
> >discuss the same topic as me.  I've assumed good faith all along: you
> >can do the same, or you can talk to someone else, because assuming bad
> >faith on my part is a quick way to get >/dev/null attached to your name.
> 
> I apologize for my outburst. I was out of line in what I said. I was
> assuming good faith for the majority of the conversation as well, I
> was simply confused about how we could be coming to such drastically
> different conclusions regarding a cited reference. I'd also like to
> know how I've been refusing to discuss the same topic?

Le sigh.

Apology accepted.  I'm frustrated too, so I can understand how you ended
up speaking too hastily.

In fact, I've probably spoken more hastily than necessary when I used
the term "refusing".  Rather, we just seem to be addressing wholly
different subtopics -- talking past one another -- to some extent.

Frankly, I'd like to drop this subthread at this point and focus on
those where I've mentioned something about why a "closure" is called a
"closure".  That's really the heart of the matter.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid