In your message of 10:52 Jul 29 1997, you write:
> Hello,
>
> Blaine, thank you for answering Kent's question which indeed is a very good
> one.
>
> Perhaps my use of "sic" was pretentious, perhaps it was an attempt to
> clarify - we may never know.
>
> Perhaps, an equally relevant issue is the content of my question/posting?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Alexander
>
Hi Alexander,
Re-reading my own posting, it struck me that what I had written might
easily be taken in a way I didn't intend. I suppose I was trying to be
witty, but I can see how it might have been hurtful since you couldn't
see the little smile on my face when I wrote it. (The problems with
faceless technology!) You're right, though, content is the important
thing here, and you raised some worthy and interesting points. Just
wanted to apologize in the meantime if you were offended by my posting.
Peace,
Blaine
--
> Hello,
>
> Blaine, thank you for answering Kent's question which indeed is a very good
> one.
>
> Perhaps my use of "sic" was pretentious, perhaps it was an attempt to
> clarify - we may never know.
>
> Perhaps, an equally relevant issue is the content of my question/posting?
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Alexander
>
Hi Alexander,
Re-reading my own posting, it struck me that what I had written might
easily be taken in a way I didn't intend. I suppose I was trying to be
witty, but I can see how it might have been hurtful since you couldn't
see the little smile on my face when I wrote it. (The problems with
faceless technology!) You're right, though, content is the important
thing here, and you raised some worthy and interesting points. Just
wanted to apologize in the meantime if you were offended by my posting.
Peace,
Blaine
--