(j3.2006) [Re: Proposal for system of units]

[Van Snyder]

On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 16:00 +0900, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> >They "lost" in subgroup by a vote of 1-1-1.
> 
> Right.  That's a loss.  Motion FAILS.

1-1-1 is decisively indifferent.

> If the paper was too superficial (and it was), that was YOUR fault.  It was YOUR 
> paper.

Most of the "too superficial" suggestions in 12-195 had references to
more complete discussions, either in papers from 2004, or a paper in the
Tutorials directory.  The content in 12-195 was intentionally as brief
as 12-183.  The brevity of 12-183 seems not to have been a problem.

> In any case, one does not "explain" something to someone who already understands 
> the issue.

Malcolm made it abundantly clear that he was completely clueless
concerning my proposal to allow an extent R array to subscript a rank R
variable, or serve as a rank R array bound.

> not needing to have 
> something explained to me is not a fault on my part.

It is if you absolutely do not in fact understand the problem and why I
and my colleagues want it solved, and refuse further discussion.

"I don't have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly."
-- Barack Hussein Obama