On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> > "Shut Up and Go Away"
You're not gonna SUGA down yer comments, are ya?
Why not pour a little SUGA on this thread?
Scott
Score:
Apology for indirection: 1
Asanine comments: 1
Thanks everyone. I think this discussion has been very helpful to the Qmail
cause ... really.
Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, e
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 23 July 2000 at 02:49:36 -0400
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
> > language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
> > th
een times before. And which is probably NOT clear to
> > you; sorry about that!
>
> Yes, let me translate for David:
>
> "Shut Up and Go Away"
No, that's unfair to David. He's not saying that. Instead, he's
(collectively) apologizing for an a
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
> language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
> the argument umpteen times before. And which is probably NOT clear to
> you; sorry abou
Michael T. Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 08:38:47
-0400
> I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually
> listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not
> how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's disc
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:38:47AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually
> listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not
> how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's discussions about be
I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually
listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not
how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's discussions about being on the
nameserver mailing list? I'm not being moderated out (I apprec
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 July 1999 at 21:05:09 -0400
> On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Kevin King wrote:
>
> > My "experience" with this list has been overall farely pleasant - despite
> > my stupid newbie questions. People like Dave Sill have been very patient.
> > BUT, because I'm a newbie,
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Kevin King wrote:
> My "experience" with this list has been overall farely pleasant - despite
> my stupid newbie questions. People like Dave Sill have been very patient.
> BUT, because I'm a newbie, sometimes even when I "RTFM" things don't
> always click. I agree with Adam Mc
My "experience" with this list has been overall farely pleasant - despite
my stupid newbie questions. People like Dave Sill have been very patient.
BUT, because I'm a newbie, sometimes even when I "RTFM" things don't
always click. I agree with Adam McKenna, if you ask nicely, you'll probably
get a
On 23-Dec-98 09:07:28, Scott Ballantyne wrote something about "Re: verifying system
binaries, a la R*dh*t". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> It's *Dan's* attitude? This thread has just gone where no thread
> should have gone. Comments like these,
12 matches
Mail list logo
