someone nested in several layers of quotes said:
>    Is this an exclusive 'or' or an inclusive 'or'?

to which there is only one good reply:  who's on first!

***

al said:
>   Much of PG's assorted FAQs
>   might be candidates for update, but
>   the bulk of them have stood the test of time. 
>   The questions are, who's going to update them,
>   how much argument from the cheap seats is going
>   to ensue, and since two of the three main complainers
>   in this forum don't submit anything anyway,
>   why should any updater put up with those complaints?

hey wait, al, am i one of those "three main complainers"?

if so, mr. haines, am i one of the two who "don't submit"?

because, technically, i _have_ actually made a submission.

moreover, i don't think i've ever lodged a complaint about
a _f.a.q._, because i'm not sure what the point would be...

and -- you know, i do really hate to be a nitpicker, but --
i think it's important to note that i don't just "complain",
i also offer an _alternative_ that will _solve_the_problem_.

finally, _i_prove_it_works,_right_in_front_of_your_face._

too bad that you'd usually stopped listening much earlier
-- meaning you often miss the fact that proof is given --
because why should you "put up with those complaints"?

-bowerbird

p.s.  that's what i'm asking!  who's on first?

p.p.s.  yes!

p.p.p.s.  the cyberarchaeologists will have a field day with
this thread.  i swear they will laugh for a week and a half!
i mean the _inclusive_ "and" when i say "week and a half".