On Aug 29, 2012 2:14 AM, "Jeremy Jackins" <jeremyjackins@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
> > 'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
> > to your concerns.  From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
> > all; it works fine, it's just not what you would have done.
>
> Speak for yourself, please.

Which part?  One was a request to provide a substantive argument, the other
an objective fact.

        - Dan C.