Re: "Shared" procedure division code

In article <3lbsjuF122al4U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Hmm...
>
>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.

>
>Pete.
>
>TOP POST - nothing more below.

All right, show's over, nothin' more to see, move along now.

DD
.

Relevant Pages