<HTML>M wrote:
> I was questioning why people pick up on simple mistakes and
> turn them into heinous crimes.
Don't you think that you're being a tad hyperbolic here? No one has turned anything into a 'heinous crime'.
> The opinion that RB should be
> derided for making a mistake is so lame as to make it
> laughable.
[sigh]
You really must hone your reading and comprehension skills. I have already told you that my opinion is that derision is applicable to adherents of Maier's Law.Which bit of that did you not understand? Nowhere did I state that it is applicable to the making of simple mistakes. Please do not attribute to me things that I have not said/written.
>
> It doesn't matter whether I have seen the article or not.
Au contraire. I do realise that actual evidence can be a tad inconvenient, but I very doubt that you can recognise the nature of the mistake – sorry, 'heinous crime' – until you have seen it.
> For example, people who link to URL's <b>should</b>
> be able to do it correctly and not have to repost a link...
> should these people be derided for their ineptitude? No.
I'll accept your analogy as being valid when Bauval corrects his errors within three minutes of publishing them. Heavens, man, the guy does a George Armstrong on them!
007 (aka A)</HTML>