Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 3 Aug 2005 09:06:31 -0400
In article <3lbsjuF122al4U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>An excellent exposition and I see your point.
Shucks... I'd blush, were I able to remember how.
>I'm still not persuaded that it is really that serious in debate, but I have
>moved closer to your position after reading this.
All I hoped to present was something that could be read and generate a
response of 'I'm not sure I agree... but it seems reasonable enough'; that
you found it 'moving' is high praise, indeed.
>(Close enough to make me aware that if I employ this device (and I do so
>rarely...) it will not be to deflect or prevaricate.)
E'en better... it might make you more aware of what *others* could be
doing when *they* employ that device.
>TOP POST - nothing more below.
All right, show's over, nothin' more to see, move along now.
- Prev by Date: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by Date: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Previous by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code