From: jimrtex@pipeline.com 
  
 On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:25:37 GMT, Gene Nygaard  
 wrote: 
  
 >On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:41:23 GMT, Jim Riley  
 >wrote: 
  
 >>Huh?  I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion.  I read 
 >>through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that 
 >>would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the 
 >>proponent's intent).  The proponent did choose to adopt my language. 
 > 
 >If you agree that the proponent's language is exclusivist, why don't 
 >you see that Bernstein's proposed revision changes this?  He wasn't 
 >trying to say the same thing the proponent was. 
  
 With whom would I be in agreement with? 
  
 Are you referring the the proponent's language during the pre-RFD or 
 as written in the present RFD? 
  
 -- 
 Jim Riley 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)