At 4:41 PM -0700 2004/02/24, Scott Long wrote: > Please be more respectful to people asking these kinds of questions. The problem here is that Daniel's initial response to David's question was fine, but David's reply was snide and passive-aggressive. Daniel responding in kind is not unexpected. David should have fully read the threads that he was referring to, and not been so flippant in the first place. > It's neither an obvious problem nor an obvious solution, and even if it > was, there is no need for so many people to cop such an attitude over > answering a comon question. There's plenty of blame to go around, however I would ask that you be fair in allocating that blame to all the appropriate parties in question. Myself having been caught in the middle of similar situations in the past, where Jordan came down on me like a ton of bricks, I feel compelled to stand up and make sure that you don't let the person who started this mess off the hook so easily. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles_at_skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)Received on Tue Feb 24 2004 - 17:11:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:44 UTC