From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <67b647c3$0$712$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 2/18/2025 11:24 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:   
   >> On 2/18/2025 10:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>> I am utterly baffled as to why you continue to regularly   
   >>> engage with this troll.  It's your choice, of course, but   
   >>> getting the backsplatter is unpleasant for rest of us who   
   >>> have already plonked him.   
   >>   
   >> +1!   
   >   
   >I have a different perspective.   
   >   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   >But it is definitely on topic for c.o.v/I-V.   
   >   
   >And maybe (just maybe) it is useful for a current or a future reader.   
   >   
   >I do not care much about who raised the question. It doesn't change   
   >being on topic or potential usefulness.   
      
   Be that as it may, the person you are responding to, and that   
   you regularly interact with at length, has shown repeatedly that   
   he is not acting in good faith.   
      
   Technical answers to technical questions, and even spirited   
   debates with vigorous disagreement, are all well and good as   
   long as all parties are at least attempting to honor a collegial   
   spirit of cooperation.  But in this case, as with most cases   
   involving Lawrence, the base conditions in which to have the   
   discussion are simply not met.   
      
   This is the sort of thing that ought to be in an FAQ.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)