"John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>  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?