Re[3]: Version 2.1?

2004-04-17 Thread Philip Storry
Hello Miles, Friday, April 16, 2004, 3:07:25 PM, you wrote: MJ> One would think Ritlabs would have sent a correction with the new MJ> date. It's as basic as it gets in term of professionalism and MJ> after all, it should just be child's play, one or a few clicks MJ> away for them, right? It woul

Re: Version 2.1?

2004-04-16 Thread David van Zuijlekom
Hello Jarle, On Friday, April 16, 2004 at 10:25:13 +0200, you wrote: ... > Was the e-mail a hoax? It's released. Look at my sig. -- Best regards, David ** In politics, stupidity is not a handicap. - Napoleon Bonaparte ** [TB! 2.10] [Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4] [Runn

Re[2]: Version 2.1?

2004-04-16 Thread Miles Johnson
MM> no, but release date was delayed, as You can see in my signature, we MM> have Release Candidate version of 2.1. One would think Ritlabs would have sent a correction with the new date. It's as basic as it gets in term of professionalism and after all, it should just be child's play, one or a f

Re: Version 2.1?

2004-04-16 Thread Marek Mikus
Hello all, Friday, April 16, 2004, Jarle H. Knudsen wrote: > a few days ago I received an e-mail from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] stating that on April 15 version 2.1 > of The Bat! would be released. However, checking the Ritlabs website > today, the latest version seems to be 2.04.7. Was

Version 2.1?

2004-04-16 Thread Jarle H. Knudsen
Hello all, a few days ago I received an e-mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] stating that on April 15 version 2.1 of The Bat! would be released. However, checking the Ritlabs website today, the latest version seems to be 2.04.7. Was the e-mail a hoax? Best regards, Jarle H. Knudsen