Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> asked:
	Did I say that we should change squeak?
	
Well, I read your message several times with great care,
and was quite sure that you DID.  I am greatly surprised
to discover that you think you didn't.

	"I would like to know what you would think of the following
	change in Smalltalk.
	We are really in the mood to make some change in the compiler to
	play with the idea for our research."
	
OK, in the context of a *Squeak* mailing list, what can "the compiler"
possibly mean if not the Squeak compiler.  (Or, considering the recent
SmaCC based work, *a* Squeak compiler.)  Especially when the message
went on to say what the consequences *for Squeak* would be.

Had you said something about "we would not expect this work to become
part of Squeak", that would have cancelled the Gricean implicature.
	
	Why people do not read emails?
	
Well, they do.  Sometimes the people who write them are less clear
about what they mean than they might have been.  This is neither
culpable nor surprising.  Such is the nature of human conversation.
I have noticed that people who have devoted their lives to the study
of, say, Plato, often fail to notice some of the plainest things about
the text (such as "Plato was a real stinker").  The great thing about
a conversational medium like E-mail is that we can correct a false
impression fairly quickly.