MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] Fw: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re:[emergency-comment] Re: CAP and attribute-free encodings...
Rick -
Sounds like you're having a bit of trouble letting go of this
yourself. No matter how many of your questions I try to answer in a
calm and factual manner, you keep coming back with another attack on
me. You're free to do that, of course, but I don't think anyone is
going to find it real persuasive. (And before you take the trouble
to say it again, yes, I fully appreciate that you don't give a damn
what I think.)
Maybe there's a difference here between the perspective of
organizations that have paid their dues to become full voting members
of the OASIS process and some of who haven't made that investment and
might sometimes tend toward a narrower take on things. I don't know.
Anyway, I'm afraid I don't recognize in you any special authority to
speak for anyone but yourself.
On the other hand, if you think you have something substantial to
contribute to the work of the TC, please bring it on. We've been
waiting for a year now to hear something substantive from the
Infrastructure project. I sincerely hope you'll manage to get
further in the near future, and I'm glad to hear you're getting some
help.
Meanwhile, I think we've worked over this whole issue pretty
thoroughly, so how about we take the weekend off?
- Art
At 1:41 PM -0800 3/26/04, CONSULTRAC wrote:
> Art,
>
> To put a point on it I don't really "care" what "...your friends and
> associates" have "...told you," I only care about what this committee DOES.
>If you and your apostles want to whine to one another about what you
>perceive as an obvious rejection of your superior attitude that's your
>right, but in this case you're a singular voice in a wilderness of your own
>making. No one else on the committee, who has been dumb enough to wade into
>this cesspool of a dialogue, seems to support your position so I'd be taking
>that to heart.
>
>Frankly, based on your continual and divisive polemics, I don't see you
>wanting ANYTHING to work vis a vis the committee; quite the contrary as a
>matter of fact, and this can only be viewed as puzzling. You insist on
>turning open discussion and reasoned council into personal attacks based on
>irrelevant issues, when the facts being discussed have nothing to do with
>personality, and only require a bit of intellectual discipline to insure the
>quality of work we produce is significant. You are certainly entitled to
>voice your personality-based likes and dislikes in a proper forum, but this
>ain't it. For the last time please get off the "horse you rode in on" and
>let the process and the committee do its work.
>
> Rick
>>
>>