On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 09:51:03AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * lee <l...@yun.yagibdah.de> [07-03-10 09:13]: > > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:12:38AM +0200, Rado S wrote: > > > > > Practice has shown that it is not best practice. > > > > Because of poor support, maybe :) > > Or, more likely, requests for features that most do *not* want presented > in a haughty manner
What's haughty about this? > which would require coding and where work-a-rounds > have been presented. Just look at the replies, ppl told me at first that a feature I have use for is useless, troublesome and pointless and that they don't want it because they don't like it. How haughty is that? And keep in mind that nobody would be forced to use this feature if they don't like it. Just look at your own comment and how haughty that is: Apparently the idea that implementing a feature would require some work is horrible to you, so you're telling me that everyone who has use for it should "implement" the feature by doing the necessary steps for each message manually. "Do it manually" was the only workaround presented, but that's silly considering that I already said in my OP that I can do it manually but am wondering if there's a better solution available. Besides, it has probably escaped you that there's a difference between "solution" and "workaround". Isn't it amazing that ppl can't say something like "hey I don't have use for this feature and I don't like it and I don't know of any implementation, but it would sure be great if you were to come up with a solution everyone could use"? You know, I've already been asking myself if I should make such a solution available for everyone who wants it if I ever implement it after seeing the rude comments I got here. Don't be surprised when at some time, you'll find yourself out of free software because you finally managed to piss off everyone who was willing to provide some.
