jhup wrote:
I believe he disagrees, as do I, on the point that the Yahoo! Group mailing list in question is credible resource.
You cannot have it both ways in an intelligent discourse. If you go down on the path of nit-picking "undeniable proof", you must be able to sustain your "credible resource".
Live by the semantics, die by the semantics.
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough - I don't find any source, short of vendor-specific data, credible - which is why I then stated the following:
Quote::
But anything you find should then be verified and tested..And as for the win4n6 list - there have been times in the past where I've found either content or linked content very useful. I guess this is.. wrong..?
(I will be stealing the verb "to Kanye" though <img src="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> )
↧