I still can't see the problem with the quotes. I am sure i read those in the 'original' article and it seemed clear enough to me where the quotes came from. This seems like another netiquette thing i am unaware of as usual.
Regards from Tom :) ________________________________ From: Charles-H. Schulz <charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> To: marketing@libreoffice.org Sent: Wed, 26 January, 2011 16:46:55 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] PC world article Le Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:34:40 -0500, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> a écrit : > On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 15:16 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > "it's really only good for Open Source Developers > > > > but not in real life" That's not journalism that's prejudice. "I > > > > miss SharePoint"..WTF? > > I see and just to be sure. > > When you quoted the author, twice, neither quote is factual or am I > not understanding your use of double quotes in this context? You are right, I should either have put double quotes or no quotes at all. Sorry for that, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/marketing/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/marketing/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
