On Sunday, March 6, 2011 2:32:41 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: > Chris Ilias wrote: > > I was advocating best practices in > communication, not criticizing. One of these best practices is to give a > clear, complete answer on the first pass > >
With all the replies, herein, I am certainly confused for a proper citation, but the text above gave /me/ a chuckle for, after skimming the topic of my apparent disinterest, I find the concern I address in opening the /topic/ has been thwarted. Allow me to clarify, I would not concern myself with derailing, whether gratuitous, or otherwise, but here we have a conversation stemmed to suggest-- i dare say, ironically-- what are the proper ways of communication on this channel. I beg your pardon, if I may reiterate my primary concern. I do not require the reader sift the sludge of mine, to glean what signal travels along that noisy text. With experience, of course, I've become aware that I fail to squelch the noise from my signal, so I abstain from communique for the returns only continue diminishing, notwithstanding my considerable effort toward the opposite. A lonely man bares his burden, so to spare them his torment he refuses his callers. I am likewise cognitive, and I wish to spare you. As stated in the original text, allusion to /multiple profiles/ is not to open discussion of "profiles", but in preface to the primary concern. Furthermore, I presume a productive contribution, or the discussion which might ensue, is best appreciated within the context of the "now" (i.e. i enjoy the X on the Y release; the gizmo introduced in ver Z.1 works well, and I hope to see more development there; etc.), unless otherwise stated and understood as such (i.e. the conversation which /did/ ensue, here, as would rely upon speculation; the future of multiple profile management; public reaction and opinion; etc.). In handling discourse with kid-gloves, communication breakdown is a likely result, albeit undesirable for effective communication. It stands to reason, then, we're “damned if we do; damned if we don't”, and /Hank Hill/ I suspect would agree, or Confucius. Guffaw. Original signal, reprocessed, sans gloves; sans preface: 1.) Firefox and Seamonkey Sync suffer from an apparent lack of foresight. 2.) Sync, it seems, operates on a quantitative assessment, while qualitative attributes: A.) are evaluated erroneously B.) while the attributes (quality) of "places" are of primary importance ... it seems the Sync evaluation somehow effectively disregards attributes in favor of quantity of items. I'd wished to abstain from hacking-up the sort of presentation I've provided, directly above, but perhaps it's best for clarity. Another way of saying it: If I never see another "Getting Started", "BBC Headlines" RSS, and link to Firefox something or other-- it will be too soon. (yet, i suspect i'll see it all again, real soon.) best wishes. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
