1 Sep
2006
1 Sep
'06
4:17 p.m.
Tony wrote....
Oh for %deity's sake.... There are 2 reasons why I didn't suggest an
alternative
1) As I've said at least twice, the original thread didn't 'register'
with me. Rememebr I'm one of the people who didn't even realise the 10
year rule was no more.
2) Even if I don't much care for something, it doesn't mean I can
necessarily come up with something better (for example, I don't much care
for Windwos, I don't think I could write a replacement).
To be honest, I didn't much care for the 10
year rule,
In that case, I sure would have appreciated more input from you when the
definition was being discussed. Was there any reason you didn't provide some
help to come up with something better than the 10 year rule if you didn't
care that much for it? Help from you would have been awesome! But I am glad
to hear that yet another person finds the 10 year rule problematic. I am seriously considering unsubscribing over
this. Not because of the
noise on the list. Not because I have any particular love of the
10-year-rule (or any other date-related rule). But because I now have no
idea what this list is actually supposed to be talking about. And there
seems little point in remaining on such a list.
So your reason for unsubbing would be because you don't understand what this
list is talking about? Sure, there's some argument about the finer details and probably the definition needs tweaking. But I
seriously doubt that
people (and you) honestly don't know what this list is about. I'm sure I and
Oh, I know plenty of machines that _I_ think are classies. I think most
list members would agree with me in every case. But that's a far cry from
having a definition of classic computer.
-tony