Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!trudel
From: trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Of Backbonisms and Misreading RFCs.
Message-ID: <13824@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 9-Aug-87 18:59:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.13824
Posted: Sun Aug  9 18:59:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 23:06:24 EDT
References: <267@brandx.UUCP> <7200004@iaoobelix.UUCP> <289@brandx.rutgers.edu> <4091@ncoast.UUCP> <319@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 21

In article <319@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:

> I never said `` don't allow binaries on the net ''.  Doubtless you
> have been hanging around the backbone so long that you think everyone
> wishes to destroy anything that doesn't please them.  I am a more
> tolerant sort.  I have proposed (elsewhere) to make the binary groups
> pointless by creating a public domain C compiler.

Doubtless you've been perverting your logic to suit yourself.  Who
started the whole discussion about "Making binary groups obsolete"???
In *all fairness*, can't you admit that if you make binary groups
pointless that eliminating them is the next logical step in the
process? (unless, of course, you like large numbers of pointless
newsgroups).  In a backwards way, you're indicating that you don't
welcome binaries on the net, so you offer a way to *eliminate* them
from the net.  Even though "eliminate" has a different meaning than
that of "disallow", we wind up with the same result.  Is that
difficult for you to understand?  I believe that this is the point
that is trying to surface here...
-- 
Sometimes a fish needs a bicycle...