On 02/09/08 18:46, Charles Campbell wrote:
> Matt Wozniski wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>>
>>> I'm seeing your message and I don't know the answer. Do you want a
>>> similar message from everyone who doesn't know the answer?
>>>
>> Naturally not; your response was far more wasteful than my post
>> already, and not just because of wasting twice as many bytes. My post
>> was an obvious attempt to get confirmation from Bram that he has seen
>> this and to ascertain whether he agrees, disagrees, or is or is not
>> considering this simple patch. Your post, on the other hand,
>> contributed nothing whatsoever.
>>
> <snip>
>
> Your "re-ping" contributed nothing whatsover; if you wanted a response
> directly from Bram, it would've been better to re-send the message
> directly to him. Your original request, as far as
> trackability/history/etc, was reasonable IMHO to have put on the list.
>
> Chip Campbell
Maybe I used (in the part you snipped) language which was felt unusually
strong for this list. I guess it was a carryover from "Mozilla bug"
language, where "spamming the bug" is used to mean "adding to a bug
report commentaries which don't contribute to the solution" as used e.g.
when some newbie discovers a bug and says "What!? A four-year-old bug
and not yet solved? What are you Mozilla chair-warmers doing? I guess
I'd better go back to IE".
Best regards,
Tony.
--
"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to
make it shorter."
-- Blaise Pascal
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
