Mark mused on 09/06/2003 07:37:23 PM:
>>>>> Go re-read Bruces email and tell me if he has posted even ONE
>>>>> post
>>>>> that backs up (some in recent posts);
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) ...I certainly dont recall any WG discussion on some of the
bigger
>>>>> issues ...
>>>>
>>>> Please point to the WG thread(s) where we discussed and resolved the
>>>> issue of scoping on SEARCH?
>>>
>>> Go re-read my post (a) was not about SEARCH. It was was in response
>>> to the text you sent. Your mis quoting me again.
>>
>> Hello! McFly!! Your (a) was a citation from one of my emails and
>> your charge was I didnt describe "bigger issues" I was referring to.
>> I did that. I listed 3 even (of which you only how include 1)!
>
> I have seen you LIE on this list many times. At what point will the
> chair of this working group stop this trouble maker?
I just have to laugh. I find it quite funny that Mark says I "LIE" when
the citation Doug used were my own quotes and I was responding to their
use.
Doug claimed that I failed to back up any of my recent 'claims' with facts
and cited (a) - (c). In response I sent back details supporting each
reference and I separated them out in response to each point.
In response to Dougs (a) citation from one of my emails (above) I provided
not 1 but 3 actual references to "back up" that comment. The first one
being:
Please point to the WG thread(s) where we discussed and resolved the issue
of scoping on SEARCH?
Dougs response? He ignored 2 of the 3 references and simply said:
Go re-read my post (a) was not about SEARCH. It was was in response
to the text you sent. Your mis quoting me again.
Well I dont know what he thought I was referring to in (a) (it was my
comment he was quoting after all) but the undiscussed and unresolved issue
of scoping results on a SEARCH is certainly a larger CAP issue that we
recently found but NEVER actually discussed NOR has Doug acknowledged it
in his rush to get to Last Call.
Instead of any actual discussion, Mark proceeds to meander around, making
lots of disparaging comments and totally unrelated or unfounded comments
like:
> With the RECURRENCE-ID issue you and Robert have changed your mind
> several times,
Sorry Mark, simply not true. Ive never changed my answer for the
scenarios we discussed.
Furthermore my answer was corroborated by both an analysis of the model in
iTIP and eventually by the authors themselves.
> You started the RECURRENCE-ID issue by declaring that it was fixed
> forever.
The scenario we were discussing was the case of simple instance
reschedules. For that the RECURRENCE-ID never changes. No change of
answer there.
If you change the change the _recurrence_set_defintion_ then the
RECURRENCE-ID "might also change" (iCalendar, Section 4.8.8.4). This
however was not the scneario we were discussing. Perhaps you would have
preferred if I qualified my answer with text unrelated to the discussion
at the time so would have just confuse folks. No matter, my answer is
still the same: RECURRENCE-ID does NOT change on an instance reschedule.
>> It was NOT resolved. Another issue you conveniently forgot for
> CAP-11 or to acknowledge lately.
>
> Did you bother reading his post? He CAN NOT change such things until the
> chair calls consensus. Because CAP IS going to ship soon (are you
> now going to claim I made a last call?)
If he cant change things in CAP then why are there 707 changes reported by
diff? Whats the rush to have CAP-12 and CAP-12-a so soon after CAP-11 if
nothings changed? If you honestly believe there were "thousands" of typos
and grammar changes then I have some land to sell you...
Instead of discussing the issues raised you perfer to waste time and
cycles with personal attacks. Gee, you sound so much like Doug you could
be his twin brother. Misquoting or misunderstanding so often I have to
laugh...
> Or at the very least post your item list (I do not think you have one).
Already done twice. Better learn to read the postings before you reply to
them.
> Do you have an issue list? Or is there just one item on your issue list
> that
> is to slow down CAP until you can ship your product?
I dont need to do Dougs job for him do I? He's the editor so he's
supposed to keep the issues list. In fact he claimed to have done that
already but he failed to list the 3 that I mentioned already. On that
same note I wouldn't dream of doing Dougs job of stalling CAP any more
than hes already done by derailing discussion and haranguing those who try
to raise issues; hes done a pretty good job of that so far.
Im not working on any CAP product like Doug is; I merely am making sure
there are no glaring issues in CAP 1.0 that should be resolved before it
goes to Last Call.
> You did not make a proposal at all. You declared you did not like
> something. Have you read
> the real proposals made by many that I read about on the list archive?
Hehehe, you must be very blissful Mark. I made a clear proposal at least
4 times so far. You managed to miss that and the posted issues so either
you are missing them intentionally like Doug or you just ignored them in
an attempt to fire off your posting and distract from the WG from the real
questions at hand.
> I see you post nothing useful most of the time, you RARELY post
> suggestions
> or useful comments.
Here a suggestion just for you Mark: read the postings before you respond.
Ive posted both suggestions, comments and proposals. Both you and Doug
seem to have a flair for ignoring them.
> WILL THE CHAIR PLEASE STOP BRUCE FROM HIS ENDLESS CRYING, LYING, AND
> ABUSE OF OTHERS!!
Oh, another funny. Just gotta laugh again since Im not the one whose
stated goal is to use email bombarding to silence folks from discussing
changes to CAP.
Ive been a voice regarding the misinterpreting of iCalendar/iTIP and Im
making sure that Doug does not just ignore raised issues with CAP in an
attempt to get it out the door ASAP rather than fixing it first. Im not
the only one nor am I going to just wither under some comic personal
attack that reads much like one of Dougs digressions.
> It takes for ever to read the archives and I am
> finding that a HUGE percentage of Bruce's posts are inflated self ego
> with
> no technical contribution, but its lots of text.
Hehehe, that describes your posting to a letter.
Now, why dont you actually read some of the proposals and issues that have
raised before you come back and waste more cycles? Or are you just
interested in providing some comic distraction and deflection from
discussion of the issues??
Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn INet:
[email protected]
Messaging & Collaboration Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.