Changes in font locking

[David Kastrup]

I actually looked up the post you referred to.  You really have a uniquely
twisted memory and/or way of putting words.

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:

> My claim is that you denied that the copy-syntax-table call was in
> Emacs 21, which is true.  <85ird4lrr2.fsf at lola.goethe.zz> You can
> say "the word I used was 'doubt'", but the important thing is that's
> enough to *strongly* discourage me from making the effort.  I don't
> know if Ralf "felt" the same; I'm glad he went ahead and did it.

So let us see what I actually said in this posting:

    From: David Kastrup <dak at gnu.org>
    [...]

    Ralf Angeli <angeli at caeruleus.net> writes:

    > * David Kastrup (2007-03-13) writes:
    >
    >> Finding out _who_ put that strange copy-syntax-table there for
    >> _what_ reason should be easy for an XEmacs developer with CVS
    >> access.
    >
    > Could have been copied from Emacs 21.

    I doubt it.  Can't check the Emacs CVS, however, since Savannah is
    down.  But it would be more relevant to check the XEmacs history
    of that line, anyway.  C-x v g for somebody having a checked-out
    copy of XEmacs, then stepping back the revisions for that line
    until one has the relevant change.

So, in _your_ version of the truth, I _deny_ that Emacs 21 is the
source of the problem.  And my "denial" is so strong that I tried
checking the Emacs CVS and failed so far, since Savannah is (still)
down.

Since your interpretations of what I actually write are so utterly
absurd (never mind that you don't ascribe motivations according to
your expressed self-belief), could you please in future actually
_quote_ all of the bad things you are talking of in respect to my
postings?

It does not seem entirely fair that my reputation should be the one to
suffer the consequences of your idiosyncratic word sense.

> You could say "Steve, you put far more effort into this flame fest
> than it would have taken to do the research."  And that would be
> correct, but very shortsighted.  To the extent that I accept
> responsibility for XEmacs development, the *last* thing *I* should
> be doing is fixing bugs.

Let me reassure that you manage to bring across _very_ _well_ the
impression that the last thing you would be doing is fixing bugs.

It is just a good thing it is the task of the XEmacs developers, not
me, to understand how this constitutes responsibility for XEmacs
development.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum