Re: ProSel 8 and 16

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

ljsilicon@aol.com (LJSILICON) wrote:

>Paul wrote... (Trying again; damn AOL)
>
>>I do agree with you that it only makes sense to have the latest version
>>in circulation.
>
>Again, the question is, What is the latest version by Glen?

Don't you get it?  The patch exists.  ProSel exists.  ProSel is now
in the PD.  Bev was going to integrate her patch with ProSel and
distribute them together as a new version.  Now this is not going
to happen.

Now wouldn't a little restraint have been better rather than attacking
a supporter of the Apple II community?  Instead of a bunch of
ProSel archives lacking Y2K compliancy floating around, we
would have the Y2K patched ProSel distributed as a new version
so that anyone who downloads it would have gotten a copy that
won't fail by the end of the year.

Even Dr. Tom saw the wisdom of removing the uploaded copies,
why can't you?  If there was a misunderstanding between
Mr. Turley and Bev, they worked it out.  So why fan the flames?
Maybe if we stop now, we can still mend things.