Steve Lamb wrote:
Nate Duehr wrote:
I didn't start the insults, please look back through the thread. The
original poster gets more and more agitated that people aren't
"testing correctly" without fully defining his problem from the
beginning.
I did, I started from the beginning and didn't feel compelled to
jump in until I saw your tripe. So now that's two false presumptions on
your part. Want to make it the trifecta? Yeah, he's grumpy, I would be
too if stuff didn't work that should, in spite of your limited view,
work. Doesn't mean you have to reciprocate and escalate.
So you felt compelled to "jump in" to rescue Bret. Fine. Useless but
fine.
We can work our problems out on our own, Steve. We're adults. No one
appointed you to be the list baby-sitter.
Do you feel compelled to "jump in" and continue this process and
actually fix his problem?
Take up the technical challenge or step away.
In my "limited view", you won't succeed in finding his problem.
There's some "tripe" for you.
Best regards,
Nate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
