Well what on earth was the point of the example ? To pretend that I WOULD assume that there were synchronisation problems ?
> In face I very specificaly covered the
>possibility that there might be, so why did you write that?
Well I am sorry that I assumed that you were trying to argue against what I actually said, but they only way I could relate it to my position was the assumption that you wanted to deny that synchronisation problems COULD happen.
So tell me why is it wrong to split up sequences of actions to avoid synchronisation problems ?
And *I* didn't start swearing after your last reply, where you replied to half a paragraph while completely ignoring the first half.
>
>None of this is getting us anywhere.
> The orriginal point stands,
>there's nothign intrinsicaly wrong with compound statements of
>intent.
And the reason why it's not getting anywhere is because you are arguing against something that was NEVER SAID. How can you hope to get a productive discussion if all you are doing is attacking me for a position I have never advocated ?
> There may be circumstances where they are not appropriate,
>but the standard rules handle them prefectly well.
And how exactly does that contradict anything I said ?
>I'm not sure what else there is to say.
>
Well, an apology would be nice.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail