From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e42b44731bedcdeb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-21 11:43:38 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!210.147.7.1!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison Sender: usenet@www.newsranger.com References: Subject: Re: re: re: re: crosstalk article on ada Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:41:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com X-Trace: www.newsranger.com 985203681 127.0.0.1 (Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:41:21 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:41:21 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5978 Date: 2001-03-21T19:41:21+00:00 List-Id: In article , Riehle, Richard says... > >Sorry to have over-reacted to the "opposing view" comments >of the Crosstalk editor. I have heard from several of your who >read the introductory remarks more carefully than I. Upon >re-reading them, I realized that this article was the opposing >view, a response to the collection of erroneous views about Ada >in an earlier issue of Crosstalk. Apologize for my mis-reading. No need for a formal apology. Your heart was in the right place, and as I said in my previous post, it (the "introductory remarks") was somewhat poorly written. I doubt you were the only one confused by it. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com