[erlang-questions] Apology

[Miles Fidelman]

On 9/19/16 5:00 AM, Roger Price wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Loïc Hoguin wrote:
>
>> There was obviously no ill intent in that message. ...
>>
>> Anyway I'm probably not the only one who thinks you're doing a 
>> fantastic job answering the many questions that are posted on this 
>> list, in great details, regardless of how trivial they are or how 
>> confused the poster is.
>>
>> On 09/19/2016 07:05 AM, ok@REDACTED wrote:
>>> I have been taken to task in private e-mail by someone
>>> who detected in my response to the "list comprehension puzzle"
>>> both "aggressive sarcasm" and "undisguised contempt".
>
> When citing the Erlang reference manual section 3.12 is seen as 
> "aggressive sarcasm" and "undisguised contempt" then this must be the 
> snowflake generation.  Perhaps section 3.12 needs a trigger warning :-)
>
> A loud and enthusiastic "Thankyou" to ROK for many excellent postings.
> I keep a stash of some which I think are outstanding.
>
Likewise!

Miles Fidelman

p.s.  Personally, I'm a big fan of "aggressive sarcasm" - sometimes it's 
more than appropriate.  :-)

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra