[ruby-talk:14429] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.

>
>Subject: [ruby-talk:14427] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.
>   From: "W. Kent Starr" <[e-mail]>
>   Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:50:10 +0900
>     To: [e-mail] (ruby-talk ML)
>
>On Sunday 29 April 2001 22:02, Marc Butler wrote:
>
>> I was addressing technical assertions as work arounds which nullify my
>> point.  I was simply countering that these assertions are not sufficient
>> to  address my concerns.  Like Kent, you are attempting to argue by
>> attacking me rather than my concerns.  (At least in this post.)  I
>> don't consider this a persuasive argument in and of itself.
>
>Would someone kindly enlighten me as to in what manner I have 'attack'ed 
>anyone on this list? Ever? I am truly at a loss to figure this out. Honestly, 
>I try very, very hard to _not_ 'attack' any; ideas, concepts, yes, but not 
>anyone personally.
>
>If I have failed in this, please accept my gravest apologies.

You inferred in your post my motivation was personal convenience,
while yours was philisophically grounded.  This is attacking the speaker 
not the argument.  It's a pretty standard form of argument; I did not take
offense.  If you argue on this basis it becomes a matter of personalities
and not arguments.

I apologise if you felt maligned.  It was not intended.  I have not expressed
myself adequately in this regard.  I should have written: "...by attacking my
supposed motivations...".  Once again I apologise sincerely for the confusion.

Marc.