> Er, I was pointing out that it would be significant if we saw things
> getting covered up and not fixed. We don't.
er, i was pointing out that it was *not* what we had been talking about all along. we talked
about things getting fixed but *not* communicated properly, in particular, the security impact
of fixes was sometimes omitted even when it was full well known. that *is* dishonest, no
matter how much you argue the opposite:
> I just don't think it's 'dishonest'.
that is *not* 'I'm agreeing with you', no matter how you spin it later.
but i said all this a 100 times already by now yet *you* keep diverging into irrelevant
possibilities that we have never raised. you tell me who has a reading comprehension propblem.
also it has been your strategy to change the subject of discussion slightly in order to be
able attack it then. that meets the dictionary definition of a strawman. i know you never
liked it when i exposed every one of your attempts, but that should not be reason to resort to
ad hominem in lieu of rational arguments (you probably figured out by now that i'm not a
native speaker, right?). as you so aptly said:
> This thread is giving me so *very* many examples of how not to communicate...