On 04/15/16 06:40, Patrick Laimbock wrote:
> On 15-04-16 13:14, g wrote:
>> On 04/15/16 04:29, Patrick Laimbock wrote:
>>> On 15-04-16 00:39, Andrew Daviel wrote:
>> <<>>
>>
>> Patrick,
>>
>> 'threading breaking' is against centos etiquette and netiquette.
>>
>> replying thread breakers does nothing but encourage them to do so again.
>>
>> many subscribers frown on thread breakers and their responders.
>>
>> please help good etiquette by not responding to them.
>>
>> thank you.
>
> Please keep your posting on-list.
>
===>
my email to you had nothing to do with original thread;
Subject: mount bind problems
email to you "off list" was because i did not wish to add to breaking
raveling of thread.
doing so now is only because of your request and desire for further
raveling of original thread.
> It's unclear what you mean. I saw a new message on the ML and responded
> to it. Where did this 'threading breaking' take place?
>
===>
the threading breaking took place when Andrew Daviel got too lazy to
compose a new email.
what he obviously did was select "reply" to a post by Robert Nichols. then
in compose window, changed "Subject:" to 'Freeradius, openldap, and TLS".
then he removed _all_ of text that was in 'body' and type in his problem.
what he is obviously unaware of, as are you, that still in email headers
where _all_ references to original thread.
also, what he is obviously unaware of is that time he spent is much longer
than it would have been had he simply started with a fresh, blank email
composure.
my apologies to rest of readers that i have further broken original thread.
i extend no apologies to Andrew Dumbviel or to Patrick Lameblock. B-)
--
peace out.
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7
tc,hago.
g
.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
