Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050319231958.0370be20@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:23:26 +0100
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] follow-up of an exchange on ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
In-Reply-To: <000c01c52cc8$1aaaa700$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0AA9EBF4@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050319211615.030e33d0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<000c01c52cc8$1aaaa700$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0250702432=="
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

--===============0250702432==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_72125661==.ALT"

--=====================_72125661==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 22:10 19/03/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
> > On 17:42 18/03/2005, Addison Phillips said:
> > > > But I need
> > > > first to review the draft (I said I will do it early next week).
> > >
> > >You send us all this without having actually read the draft?
> >
> > I do not understand how I must take this?
>
>IETF working group participants are strongly encouraged to read and
>comment on the working group's drafts.

Dear Randy,
shhhh...... this teasing starts being tiring and totally counter productive.
I suggest you  _read_ the exchange above.

Obviously I read the draft ... and make it read! My question was precisely 
about the hurting supposition that I did not _read_ the draft when I said 
that I will _review_ it. I am surprised you add your own: the line you 
removed also added "I will go into details".

I do not use to formally comment without having carefully studied the 
things. I have no intent to waste time in reviewing the draft and propose 
an alternative draft if Addison has modified it, considers others needs and 
stops hurting the rest of the planet.

This being said I still have not all the feed-backs from the people I 
polled. I will also wait for the feed-backs from the WG. I only hope that 
we can reach a consensus.

In case we have some misunderstanding between en-FR, en-UK and en-US:

Review, v tr.
    * To look over, study, or examine again.
    * To consider retrospectively; look back on.
    * To examine with an eye to criticism or correction: reviewed the 
research findings.
    * To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for 
example).
    * Law. To reexamine (an action or determination) judicially, especially 
in a higher court, in order to correct possible errors.
    * To subject to a formal inspection, especially a military inspection.
v. intr.
    * To go over or restudy material: reviewing for a final exam.
    * To write critical reviews, especially for a newspaper or magazine.
I observe that to date the debate of this WG only concerns minor editing 
while important structural points are at stake.
But it seems that JFC teasing is a priority. If it pleases you .... but in 
the meanwhile it does not make the things to progress.
Take care.
jfc


--=====================_72125661==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
At 22:10 19/03/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi -<br>
&gt; On 17:42 18/03/2005, Addison Phillips said:<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; But I need<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; first to review the draft (I said I will do it early next
week).<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt;You send us all this without having actually read the
draft?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I do not understand how I must take this?<br><br>
IETF working group participants are strongly encouraged to read and<br>
comment on the working group's drafts.</blockquote><br>
Dear Randy,<br>
shhhh...... this teasing starts being tiring and totally counter
productive.<br>
I suggest you&nbsp; _read_ the exchange above.&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp;<br>
Obviously I read the draft ... and make it read! My question was
precisely about the hurting supposition that I did not _read_ the draft
when I said that I will _review_ it. I am surprised you add your own: the
line you removed also added &quot;I will go into details&quot;.<br><br>
I do not use to formally comment without having carefully studied the
things. I have no intent to waste time in reviewing the draft and propose
an alternative draft if Addison has modified it, considers others needs
and stops hurting the rest of the planet. <br><br>
This being said I still have not all the feed-backs from the people I
polled. I will also wait for the feed-backs from the WG. I only hope that
we can reach a consensus. <br><br>
In case we have some misunderstanding between en-FR, en-UK and
en-US:<br><br>
Review, v tr. 
<ol>
<li>To look over, study, or <b>examine again</b>. 
<li>To consider <b>retrospectively; look back on</b>. 
<li>To examine with an eye <b>to criticism or correction</b>: reviewed
the research findings. 
<li>To write or <b>give a critical report on (a new work or performance,
for example)</b>. 
<li><i><u>Law.</u></i> To <b>reexamine </b>(an action or determination)
judicially, especially in a higher court, in order to correct possible
errors. 
<li>To subject to a <b>formal inspection</b>, especially a military
inspection. 
</ol><i>v.</i> <i>intr.</i> 
<ol>
<li>To go over or <b>restudy material: reviewing for a final exam.</b> 
<li>To write <b>critical reviews, especially for a newspaper or
magazine</b>. 
</ol>I observe that to date the debate of this WG only concerns minor
editing while important structural points are at stake.<br>
But it seems that JFC teasing is a priority. If it pleases you .... but
in the meanwhile it does not make the things to progress.<br>
Take care.<br>
jfc <br><br>
</body>
</html>

--=====================_72125661==.ALT--



--===============0250702432==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

--===============0250702432==--