2007/5/15, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Thomas Michael Engelke wrote:
> But that's arguing semantics when the core of the problem is known
> now. I apologize for having a different set of mind and not
> understanding the problem instantly.
This is not a fair remark, considering I pointed out to you, privately,
that he made the statement fairly clearly before his last post, which is
why he said it all-caps/bold the second time around.
It's not that you didn't understand the problem instantly: the problem
was explained fairly clearly; it's that you made him repeat his answers,
indicating that you hadn't read them.
Damn. I apologize again, this time for replying your mail on the list.
Now I know why there was no "Reply to all", which I thought to be a
glitch in GMail.
And yes, you are right about the other thing, too. I did understand
what he wrote but discarded it as not possible. I think I fell into
that pattern when I read the first reply to my problem which was
bollocks, obviously by someone who did not read what I wrote as he
suggested something I already did and described.
I promise to read the replies I will be given better from now on and
not discard them so easily.
Thomas
--
GPG-Key: tengelke.de/thomas_michael_engelke.asc
