=- James Cameron wrote on Wed 18.Jul'07 at 19:55:27 +1000 -=

> > Don't ask for something when you don't want to deal with the answer.
> > Especially don't use the form you later complain about.
> Sorry, but I don't remember the question now.

I quoted it for reference in the beginning of this subthread not too
long ago. You wanted to know my definitions for some terms/ words I
used, to which I gave answers with more questions from me, but to
which you refused to answer because of the posting style (which you
had used to ask me 1st).
 This "refresh" subthread isn't as long + old as the original,
should have been easy to find in the archive, if you don't have a
local copy anymore.

But you shouldn't have forgotten the following points of my previous
posts in this subthread to which you responded so cut off above,
because they need some clarification in the light of your latest
post to the thread "Need help with security vulnerability in Vanilla

My question in the previous message [with edited parts]:

------ QUOTE BEGIN ------
> > do you refuse changes because you _can't_ (low on time) or
> > because you don't _want_ to change your habits (keep own
> > [current] trek commitment level low)? [...]
> > 
> > > Communication is the responsibility of both parties; the 
> > > transmitter and receiver. If you think otherwise, then your
> > > communication will be ignored.
> > 
> > Correct. It was not my fault alone, yet you refuse to respond at
> > least _your way_ (since you don't like mine).
------- QUOTE END -------

Your introduction line in that other post:

------ QUOTE BEGIN ------
> Warning: composite reply to multiple posts.
------- QUOTE END -------

... and then you do it "my way": big, combined post.
This means: you _can_ change.

But what's different now?
Why didn't you respond your preferred immediate and "split up" way
as that thread came in?
Why can't you handle my posts when they are in the same form?


If you haven't read the big original one before, FYI:
- "Thanks for the vote of confidence in our services. I take this as an attack."
	At first I thought "no, _you_ shouldn't feel attacked,
	because the request was not directed at you as much as the others".
	But then ... if you feel that way ... then something must be
	wrong and has been wrong all along.
	Even though I still don't mean to attack anyone to do harm,
	I actually mean to make people think and maybe change.
	If this equates to attack, then I'm sorry you see it that way.

- You asked me
	"When? Cite reference. Give link to archive"
	when I explained that the personalized "dead line" summary
	request was only a consequence of a previous general attempt
	to get responses from the -- until then -- unconfirmed
	"people in charge".
	I recovered the reference: 
	Message-ID: <20070409133505.GA25175 at sun36.math.uni-hamburg.de>
	Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 15:35:05 +0200
	Subject: [netrek-dev] netrek organisation (all resource owners please read)

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.