My posts

[Ron at]

I have been out in the field for a couple days and returned to find a box
full of emails including a few from taxacom.

This post is to inform the taxacom list of the way I deal with posts.
First, because all posts to a list serve are to a group then it is
understood that the things said are not just to an individual but also to
the gallery.  You will note that I will either address all my _reply_ posts
to either a individual or just taxacom.   Thus, when an individuals name
appears in the to line of my post you can know that a good bit of what is
said is directed to and about that individual. BUT, when only taxacom
appears in the to box then the post is not to an individual _at all_ and
the content is only topical - even though an individual or individuals may
be quoted and in that sense responded to.

Next, I love to editorialize.
This means it is not easy to discern, or even evident at all, when I have
moved from specifics to philosophicals or straw men. I do well in personal
conversations and debates. I do not always communicate well in email chat
groups.
My remark of --      "...If the writers of edition 4 had a 'Principle of
Usage' that was to now rule over _all_ it would have been explicitly stated
[and] not left up to psychic insights into its authors 'intents'."  --- was
not aimed at Chris Thompson (we know this as the post was not addressed to
him) but was addressing what and how anyone consulting the Code was to go
about understanding it. I used his word "intents" but the "psychic
insights" was meant apply to anyone and everyone - including I, you and/or
he.

I also like humor, sarcasm and hyperbole - but I do not take cheep shots at
people. Though some who can dish it out but can't take it might feel
otherwise. I also appreciate a good counter puncher :-)
Cheers
Ron

PS  Now to reading answering the rest of the emails. Stay tuned.