Subject: Re: your mail
To: John S. Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Herb Peyerl <email@example.com>
Date: 07/15/1997 14:41:35
"John S. Dyson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I've pointed out that, in fact, I didn't, I just mentioned that Linux
> > did do so, and I've asked you to *not* say I did.
> > And you then you reply:
> > (which no-one is proposing at this time except *you*), or something else?
> Ahhh... come on... dont be so sensitive. I am not accusing. Note that
> > you just aggravate things. John, are you deliberately trying to start
> > a flamewar?
> Nope... Sorry, you misunderstand. We have spent alot of time on
> another. IMO, the AVL approach is not needed. It doesn't mean
> that the AVL approach is *wrong*, it is just mostly not needed.
> > >Please recognize that I have not been attempting to be offensive.
> > OK, granted, but please recognize that when you contine to
> > misunderstand and/or misrespresent what I said, even after I've asked
> > you not to, that's not at all how it seems.
> I have not been representing what you have said. You brought up an
> idea that Linux uses AVL trees which implies that it might solve the
> problem, and I replied that it isn't necessary to use the AVL trees.
> I additionally stated that the missing coalese code is partly
> > I think we're not talking quite the same language, then.
> > To you, the word "fix" has connotations it doesn't to most people.
> > I used "fix" in the sense of a ``simple quick fix'', as contrasted, to,
> In my parlance, if someone fixes a problem, it's effects are not only mitigated,
> I didn't know that "fix" means "work-around" :-). Usually when I say fix,
> I mean fix :-). I use "work-around" as a nonprejudicial, nice form of "reasonably
Could you guys stop (intentionally?) misinterpreting one another and go
back to your regularly scheduled programming?