Posted by Neredbojias on 12/13/79 11:24

With neither quill nor qualm, Albert Wiersch quothed:

>
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B6ED74798D1jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
> > "Albert Wiersch" <mrinternetnewsREMOVEUPPERCASETOREPLY@wiersch.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > You never answered why you keep calling a non-validator a validator,
> > except
> > by admitting that it is not "technically" (i.e., in reality) a validator.
>
> I've answered it many times. This is an example of why I'm not going to
> continue to talk about it - it goes no where. See my previous messages for
> why it is called a validator. Look up the word validate in the dictionary
> (note that there is more than one definition).

Hey, I might be a smartass and make immature posts on purpose, but you 2
sound like little kids obliviously.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]