Rod, at 10:09 on Jun 03 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

RS> Still mangling the story completely.

BG> Nope, approaching it a different POV perhaps, but not mangling it.

RS> Fraid so, you clearly know bugger all about whats involved with 
RS> programming.

Crap, I know that if I typo a BASIC function, it won't bloody work.  I
don't have to be a high-level programmer to know that.

BG> Last I heard, SFA means NONE.

RS> You need new batterys for your hearing aid then, its not the same.

How so?  SFA = Sweet Fuck All = zero, nothing, nada, zilch, fuck-all.  :)

BG> I have given a specific known example. Ergo, SFA no longer applies.

RS> Only if SFA=NONE and it doesnt.

Oh twaddle, that's EXACTLY what it means Rod!

BG> Or is that just another Grimsleyan brain fart?

RS> Yes, it is indeed |-)

The question was rhetorical.  And the correct answer was "no".

BG> Sure, that's basically what I'm suggesting anyway.

RS> Nope, you were making a comment about 'loss of face'.
RS> Thats not what 'loss of face' means.

BG> The stuff above about Vi Tran not wishing to shame herself
BG> and/or her family sure sounds like avoiding loss of face to me.

RS> If its true, its still just one person Bill. 

In which case, it ain't SFA.  Surely even you can see that?

RS> What matter is how widespread that attitude is.  All you have done is 
RS> assert that thats common, without much evidence that thats an important
RS> effect, and considerable evidence that large parts of the Vietnamese 
RS> community dont bother about it too much.

Still aint "SFA" though, is it?

BG> Either that, or you're just intentionally being obnoxious.  |-)

RS> Gets who hates having the hole in his argument pointed out |-)

You do Chucky, you do.  |-)

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10 alpha