Re: Half-baked unused features.

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> There is sufficient disagreement that I consider it useful to get a
>>> more qualified point of view.
>>
>> That would hurt if I didn't agree with you completely.  :-)
>
> Why would it hurt you if I check what my actual efforts for "jumping
> through the proper hoops" are?

no, no... that was a joke.  I was making a joke about your (justified)
saying that my point of view was not qualified.

I mean, completely rewritten / reinterpreted for humorous effect:

Carl: Graham said it was ok, so go ahead.
David: yeah, well... Graham is an idiot, so I can't trust him.
Graham: ouch, but not really, because I agree that I'm an idiot.


... ok, maybe it wasn't as funny as I thought it was initially.
[which just lends further credence to my idiot-ness]

Cheers,
- Graham