Re: For Your Information

["Daniel J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

It saddens me that I've actually received a couple of angry messages
about my supposed taping of a phone call from a man I don't even know.
What's next? Do we get to hear about how Dan Bernstein spent three hours
chatting with Elvis, only to admit at the end that he'd been taping the
conversation? I suppose these people will read Elvis's editorial about
it in the National Enquirer a few days later. (He's alive and writing
editorials. Didn't you know?)

[sigh]

In message <[e-mail]> you write:
> The statement "I haven't been logged on for a few days" confuses me,

``For a few days'': Between late at night on Monday and Thursday. (My
login shell continues running while I'm not connected; I use a package
which lets the shell survive past network crashes and such. And of
course mail is never delivered instantly.)

> I could not read past the word "incompetent"
> as used in his note. It was to personalized to St. Johns, not St. Johns'
> work.

False. The word ``incompetent'' appears five times, as the opposite of
``competent'' from RFC 1310. Each time it describes StJohns's work. (It
is quite possible for a competent man to produce incompetent work, for
instance by spending very little time on the work and ignoring its
problems.)

---Dan