[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 168, Issue 18

[John Grehan]

Thanks Paul for that clarification. As you said, the original question was
straightforward enough and allowed an answer to be generated that addressed
the issue. Asking the question to the list caused consternation by at least
one person, and given their viewpoint that is understandable. Then my
initial response concerning the cutoff date was a bit clumsy, but that was
later addressed. I've noticed with respect to other nomenclatural issues
that there are often back and forth clarifications of what is said or
intended, not to mention what is said or intended in the code itself. I
would never have made a good lawyer (or even a lawyer at all).

John Grehan

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 4:38 AM Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Todd via Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 10:04 PM
>
> > Extraordinary. Not only has John written a question
> > so poorly that it has been completely misunderstood
> > by all [...]
>
> ***
> By all? Personally I did not misunderstand the
> question, but given the generic terms in which it
> was phrased there was no point in adding
> anything to the initial response by Tony Rees
> which had already covered the matter quite
> adequately.
>
> Paul
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>