Well, this has got to be the definition of irony, right? ROFL ---- Rado S <list2rado at gmx.de> wrote: > =- Jeffrey Watts wrote on Fri 28.Mar'08 at 1:48:00 -0500 -= > > > Anyhow, I'm going against my better judgment to try to explain > > this to you again. > > Funny that you mention this, those were exactly my thoughts, too. :) > Bear with me a last time, then judge better. ;) > > > By responding to every sentence I wrote you kind of missed my point, > > but I do appreciate that you feel the need to explain your views. > > It's useless (for me) to go this far and then let wrong impressions > stay as last words. I'm not the bad guy despite opposing the main > guy seen as "good". There isn't just black and white. > > > You see, this kind of "explaining your views" is your problem. > > {...} > > you need to make your point and move on. You do not move on. You > > go quiet for a month or so, then post, post, post there it comes > > again. > > If I wouldn't have had moved on, I wouldn't have stumbled over > the meta-server issues to raise them, which were the origin of this > activity. One query led to another. Besides, netrek decisions have > changed over course of time, so there are chances other things > change, too. > > No, "explaining" is not the problem. It helps understand and make > people think. > Sometimes new insights pop up. > I learned something new about James (and other things), so I > thought it could be combined with something else. > This time I just forgot a fact which would have stopped me from > going the known wrong way again. I didn't recall until we clashed > again about it. > > > Most of the developers that still respond to you are obviously not > > taking you seriously at all, and your continued onslaught of > > comments only serves to make it worse. > > I'm not blind, I'm aware of that. So obviously I'm not responding > only for/ to them, as much as my original questions weren't limited > to them. It's a pity the same few people responded the same way. > (Is this really all that is left?) > While I said I'm sorry for them responding when they shouldn't, > it's still up to them. If there is interest in learning, then > follow through, otherwise don't even start. > > > I don't see you as a bad person, my personal opinion is that your > > communication techniques are very flawed and backfire on you. > > I'm probably mistaken about the energy and diversity total that is > left in netrek to find some likeminded folks. > > > Anyway: you keep doubling the posts by using 2 addrs. Please use > just @lists.netrek.org. > > -- > © 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. > > _______________________________________________ > netrek-dev mailing list > netrek-dev at us.netrek.org > http://mailman.us.netrek.org/mailman/listinfo/netrek-dev