FW: [texhax] Bilbliography problem
P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk
Wed Nov 9 12:53:54 CET 2005
Philip G. Ratcliffe wrote:
> I seriously think there some confusion here: it can hardly be said the Robin
> got angry or even insulted Zak, the original poster. To my knowledge, the
> first of Robins postings is as follows (I've only removed previous posting):
> as i said in reply to this question on comp.text.tex, it's not a good
> idea to persist with latex 209 compatibility mode. make your document
> a latex2e one, if at all possible
> it's fairly obvious you've got something completely broken up there,
> yet you tell us *nothing* about it other than "it doesn't work".
> produce a minimal example, and there's a good chance someone will
> as i said before:
> That's it! Not at lot of name calling, nor bile, nor choleric, not even
> much sarcasm as I can see. Of course, it may have be that Uwe's crystal
> ball allows him to read people's minds and he sensed Robin's irritation, but
> then maybe he could have just left it up to Robin's sixth sense to receive
> the reprimand. Indeed, I do believe it is still true that Uwe himself did
> not offer any real solution or help to the original poster and merely used
> the thread as a vehicle to have a go at Robin in public.
No, the bile and choleric were not in the message you
cite, but then that was not the message to which
I was replying when I used those terms : bile and
choleric were most certainly in evidence in Robin's
more recent message (the one to which I was replying)
when he wrote :
"goodbye, you little toad" and "this luck person"
I'm afraid that Robin's ire got the better of him
on this occasion, as sadly it does rather too
often for my (and, I believe, Uwe's) liking.
More information about the texhax