# [texhax] Bilbliography problem

Uwe Lück uwe.lueck at web.de
Thu Nov 10 09:09:27 CET 2005

At 12:45 09.11.05, Philip G. Ratcliffe wrote:
>Hmm, twenty minutes and a satisfacory answer?  A pity that I somehow suspect
>that this is NOT a veiled criticism of Uwe's UN-helpful postings after 3 and
>4 days!
>
>Please, see my last posting, but really has anyone here actually read
>Robin's original reply?  I can't for the life of me find anything tactless
>or impolite.  Uwe decided to have a go at him on this occasion (without, I
>repeat, actually offering any help to Zak) for some personal and (to me)

Sorry, some here tend to ignore certain things again and again.
When I guess that Zak has failed to use \begin{thebibliography}
(or at least \usecounter, if he has hacked something),
isn't it clear what remedy I propose?

At this occasion I'd like to thank for all moral support,
while I'm not entirely happy to be named so often.
Yet I find myself lucky to have stirred up so many
opinions and reports from which I learn much,
being quite new here.

I admit that Zak is behaving strangely. Robin wrote
that he had demanded from David Kastrup to stop
posting. This demand would be strange; moreover
comp.text.tex -- which I don't read -- and once here
and then has left alone all the many people who
would have liked to help him. However, due to this
whole story, I am sceptical about reports from
Robin written in anger. Maybe, again, Zak has merely
criticized David Kastrup's style.

Sorry, I think I didn't want to post the fun ... TUGboat'
posting, rather have overlooked that texhax was in the
cc:

More generally, I would admit that I better would type
postings in the morning than at night.

Peace!
Uwe.

`