Re: ProSel 8 and 16

[cranem@athenet.net (Michael Crane)]

On 5 Mar 1999 08:26:53 GMT, supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:

>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.

I, too, agree with this.  While it may surprise some of you whom I
have had disagreements with in the past (and still disagree with in
the present on some issues), it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
to attack Beverly.  She and the folks shes working with are among the
few folks still working on NEW stuff (or making sure the old stuff
doesn't break) for the Apple II product line.