Re: argument from authority considered pointless

> The continued existence of those disconnects and the determined refusal
> of a few to acknowledge their existence despite other participants
> attempting "to help do the work" is depressing at best.

The myth that such disconnects occur has been described several times
already and we've already answered that myth a dozen times or more,
so your claims of not being answered are typical of the quality of
your posts.  Dan already asked you and the group, politely, to suggest
changes or shut up.  It is obvious that you don't respect our policies,
so I am telling you to shut up or go away.

> This is not a class, and I will not do your homework for you - and 
> being
> told to SHUT UP because I find your philosophical bent disconnected 
> from
> the specifications you wrote does nothing to improve my opinion.

If you have a suggestion for a change to the Web Architecture document
produced by the TAG, then make it explicitly and without rehashing old
arguments.  If you have a suggestion for a change to 2396, then make it
on the uri@w3.org mailing list and I will add it to the issues list
(assuming it isn't already there).  I refuse to debate that standard
in more than one forum because doing so disenfranchises the IETF folks.
If you have suggestions for corrections to RFC 2616, then I suggest you
send them to the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list.

> While I thank you for your past contributions, this conversation is 
> making me
> question their value as well.

Go ahead, just so long as you do so in some other forum.  I don't care
how you waste your own time, only how it is wasting ours.

....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 17:51:30 UTC