Re: BCF and BADD

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 95-11-28 21:27:25 EST, ornstn@inforamp.net (Ronald
Orenstein) writes:

>A (rather peevish, I admit) question:  after GO's lengthy exposition of BCF
>last week I replied at even more interminable length with a number of (I
>thought) critical points, as well as a few short messages.  The  short ones
>appear to have been picked up on, but my longer comments appear to have
>produced a deathly silence.  I assume from this that:
>
>a.  I have stunned George into contrite silence; and/or
>b.  My comments were so idiotic as not to be worth replying to; and/or
>c.  I have bored everyone into a state of catatonia.
>
>However, if anyone out there is still awake, I would be curious to know just
>how nonsensical or uncomprehending my message was.  Thanks.

The trouble with e-mail communications is that the composition of serious
replies to seriously put questions is compromised by the immediacy of the
medium.

In other words, I saved your comments in a file, where I can compose some
replies at leisure offline after I've finished my paying work. The long
letter, by the way, is so long that I think separate e-mails for each of the
different points will be most useful; otherwise we'll be sending ten-page
messages to one another (instead of ten one-page messages?). Each reply will
have to review all the relevant comments that came before.

Seriously--hang in there. I've been busy, but I'll get around to replying as
soon as I can.

G.O.