On 15 Apr 2011, at 01:02, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/14/11 6:42 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 21:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/11 4:11 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 20:11, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>>
On 4/15/11 4:58 AM, Keith Alexander wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Hi,
I am looking at the process and outcomes I observe, rather than delving into
the details.
It is not about whether people could have acted differently - it is about how
people actually did act.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking at the process and outcomes I observe, rather than delving into
> the details.
> It is not about whether people could have acted differently - it is about how
> people actually did act.
> A lost opportunity? Clearly there
On 4/14/11 6:42 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 21:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/14/11 4:11 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 20:11, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh
On 14 Apr 2011, at 21:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/14/11 4:11 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 20:11, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>>
On 4/14/11 4:11 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 20:11, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/12/11
On 14 Apr 2011, at 20:11, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/12/11 4:33 PM,
On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/12/11 4:33 PM, David. Huynh wrote:
I, as well as others I know, find the culture that has deve
On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> Hi Kingsley,
>>
>> On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/11 4:33 PM, David. Huynh wrote:
> I, as well as others I know, find the culture that has developed on this
>
On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/12/11 4:33 PM, David. Huynh wrote:
I, as well as others I know, find the culture that has developed on this list of
responses saying "Well this is how I do it" alienating, and thus som
Hi Kingsley,
On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 4/12/11 4:33 PM, David. Huynh wrote:
>> > I, as well as others I know, find the culture that has developed on this
>> > list of responses saying "Well this is how I do it" alienating, and thus
>> > sometimes a barrier to postin
On 4/12/11 4:33 PM, David. Huynh wrote:
> I, as well as others I know, find the culture that has developed on this list of
responses saying "Well this is how I do it" alienating, and thus sometimes a
barrier to posting and genuine responses, and so actually stifles discussion.
David/Hugh,
I
+1 to your observation. And FWIW, I hesitated for 30 minutes literally before
sending this message, deciding to say very little lest I get pulled into some
philosophical debate myself :)
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> A recent thread included discussion
A recent thread included discussion of how to reply to postings.
For what it's worth, I don't agree that the best way to reply to a posting
about doing something in one system is to say:
"Well this is how I do it in my system."
At its best, it is hard to understand what the respondent means, be
14 matches
Mail list logo
