Okay. On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 05:57:42PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > =- 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 > server". > > 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! -- James Cameron mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org http://quozl.netrek.org/