Thunderbird mailer

[Dotan Cohen]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 18:12, Shachar Shemesh <shachar at shemesh.biz> wrote:
>  I
>> didn't assume anything, all the facts that I mention are referred to
>> here (your site):
>> http://www.lingnu.com/en/howto/78-si1452.html
>>
>
> As for the actual criticism, when you've shown that you understood WHY
> the decisions were taken (documented in my blog), then you can make
> constructive suggestions how to make it better. Until then, you are just
> a joker who throws stones from afar.
>

Fair enough. I do appreciate your team's efforts, even if I don't
agree with the outcome. Your previous post explaining why RLM and LRM
were not included was very clear, I understand what you said. You feel
that those two characters affect the paragraph "violently". I find
that to be an unsatisfactory explanation for not including them, in
fact I find that to be a satisfactory reason davka [1] to include
them. The character perform their intended effect. The fact that the
paragraph is so mungled without them that the change is "violent" when
the paragraph is aligned properly demonstrates just how bad the
characters are needed. I could say that the paragraph is "violently"
aligned without them.


> For the record, Shai Berger also did not like some of the decisions. He
> asked to be attend personally, got his wish, made his case, got focused
> responses, and was satisfied that it couldn't have been done better.
>

Where can I read the explanations? Would you mind CCing Shai with my
contact info? Thanks.


> It is possible that things could be done better, but uninformed
> criticism like yours shows little more than ignorance, and does little
> to get us there (assuming it's possible).
>

I'm interested in being a productive participant. If I should make a
good case for including the RLM and LRM, incluuding the places to plut
them on the keyboard, to whom should I address it?

Thanks.


[1] How to say דוקא in English?

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com