This doesn't come across as "caustic" as when I previously read it. And the "bile" isn't directed so much at Lee as it is at something he wrote; "All in all, the pairs notion is redundant."
Naggum genuinely seems to be hoping that his long and thorough explanation will convince Lee of his point of view, and not as a put down.
> I hope you understand and appreciate what I have written above so the
following does not apply to you anymore.
The "following" where he goes off on what Lee wrote, but not on Lee himself.
It might be worth it for me to re-read Naggum's posts, now that I have a better understanding of where he was coming from.
Naggum genuinely seems to be hoping that his long and thorough explanation will convince Lee of his point of view, and not as a put down.
> I hope you understand and appreciate what I have written above so the following does not apply to you anymore.
The "following" where he goes off on what Lee wrote, but not on Lee himself.
It might be worth it for me to re-read Naggum's posts, now that I have a better understanding of where he was coming from.