Ned Freed wrote:
>> Man, I really wish I understand you because I see no such prohibition
>> at all. All it is saying is don't force it way way or another, keep
>> as is and hopefully before the entire process is complete.
> Well, all I can say is that I sure see such actions as prohibited by
> current language. And it seems that most other people who have weighed
> in on this at least agree it can be interpreted that way. You choose
not to, and
> that's certainly your perogative, but if it can be interpreted in a way
> that causes various common operations to be considered incompliant I
> as a problem.
Ned, I'm grown tired of this attacks. Its funny that I could of
blabbed the same thing about you. So you beat me to it (although I
wasn't planning to) and labeled me the odd ball here. Fine, its par
for the course here.
And with that I'm done. I have spent a considerable amount of time
trying to explain this and now you accuse me of attacking you - which
> I did not do.
I really should know better by now. But while I'm a slow learner, I do
eventually get it. This will be my final response, and I apologize
to everyone else on the list who has had to endure this.
All I am saying is that you spent a considerable amount of time as if
this was my own mis-reading, that we would not be compliant (3 times)
and it was my prerogative as to to blow me off. That was becoming
obvious and I was hoping you would stop and focus on the differences.
Just consider I am not off base here - that first sentence "Explain
this" as if I was clearly wrong and that last sentence of yours are
all prime example of what you continue to do ALWAYS and exactly what I
am saying - I'm the bad guy here. I created the "bandwidth" problem. I
hope you would stop it.
All I wanted to know is what you were suggesting because it appeared
to me that the alternative would create more harm, not less. In fact,
let it be known that I asked you off list for clarification - which
you choose not to reply to but instead came back with this.
I'm the bad guy!