From owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Fri Jun 25 19:23:02 1999
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id TAA98066;
	Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:23:02 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA98061
	for <freebsd-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:23:01 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from asami@cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id FAA12029; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 05:21:19 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sji-ca44-84.ix.netcom.com(209.111.212.212) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id rma012015; Fri Jun 25 05:20:51 1999
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.6.9) id DAA01960; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 03:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 03:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199906251020.DAA01960@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: silvia.hip.berkeley.edu: asami set sender to asami@cs.berkeley.edu using -f
To: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com
CC: motoyuki@snipe.rim.or.jp, nclayton@lehman.com, kuriyama@sky.rim.or.jp,
        doc@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-translate@ngo.org.uk, jdp@FreeBSD.ORG,
        freebsd-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <57461.930305624@zippy.cdrom.com> (jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami)
References:  <57461.930305624@zippy.cdrom.com>
Reply-To: FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+990625
X-Sequence: FreeBSD-tech-jp 2307
Subject: [FreeBSD-tech-jp 2307] Re: Resolution: FDP reorganisation
Errors-To: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: asami@FreeBSD.ORG

 * From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
 * 
 * > So,  It is NEEDLESS at all.
 * 
 * Not to jump in the middle of an argument, but I should note that Nik
 * has presented a number of reasonable points in his message and simply
 * dismissing them all with a single-line reply of this nature does not,
 * I believe, do the poster credit.  A more adequate rebuttal is called
 * for.

Um, Konno-san clearly quoted the part of Nik's message he's arguing
against, offered a two-paragraph explanation (which you omitted in
your quote) why he thinks it is useless, and offered this conclusion
after another quote (Nik's mini-conclusion on that point).

Dismissing *that* as a "single-line reply" is indeed quite a leap in
my opinion. :)

Satoshi
