On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:38 -0700, MHR wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Doug Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote: > >> 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom > >> post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard.... > > > > I'm sorry, that last sentence was unnecessary and just rude. I don't > > tell you how to set your email client and what your preference is toward > > how you like to read your email. I find it completely annoying to have > > to scroll to the bottom of a message to read a reply. I will comply > > with the group as a whole that I chose to join, I was unaware that > > bottom posting was preference. But I do not appreciate the tone, you > > could have easily asked nicely or referred me to the preference policy > > for me to follow. > > > > You apparently didn't see the smiley I left out of the last sentence.... :-) > I didn't mean it to be rude at all - no tone implied. I just noticed > that you have posted several times to the list and all of them, until > now, were top posts, unlike almost everyone else. I /was/ trying to > be nice....
"It's not that hard" would have gotten you b**ch slapped even with a smile on your face in person. Just stick to polite, it's not that hard :D. > > > This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and > > a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent > > paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that. > > My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone > > else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my > > statement I said: "Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that > > someone hijacked my thread with." So I'm agreeing that XFS should never > > be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file > > system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. > > > > Yes, I've been reading the thread. I you didn't mention GFS in the > specific post to which I was replying, but you're right, it's there in > prior posts. So all of my commentary about XFS does not apply to your > post. Non-sequitur - mea culpa. :-) > > > I already agreed and removed kernel from the update, no need to lecture. > > It was intended to be a gentle reminder. (You've obviously never seen > me lecture....) touche! > > > Again, if you will take the time to read instead of knee-jerking a > > reaction in some automatic defense of your feelings, you will note that > > I took the aim at RedHat for the issue, and said it was not CentOS's > > problem. Read boy, read. > > > <snip> > > > > And unfortunately, all based on improper understanding of what was > > written, which makes it inappropriate in a public forum. Me thinks you > > had seen enough of the other guy whining about his unsupported platform, > > saw the word XFS in my paragraph, and basically quit reading and decided > > to send your XFS rant at me. I hope from a therapeutic standpoint, it > > helped you in some fashion. > > > > You seem awfully touchy here - are you sure you're not lecturing me? :-) > > Take a breath, relax, you were not under attack, lecture or anything > rude. I meant it with the best of intentions - I usually do. Bad thing about email, it's hard to grasp tongue in cheek humor and tone isn't it? Didn't you see my <bfg> at the end of my response? Do you honestly, like having to scroll down with the rolly thing on your mouse 9 times to get to the reply only to find it is not something you cared to read? I say toss it at the top in my face where I can ignore it with less effort. :D BFG! > mhr > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
