>On 8/4/06, pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >On 8/4/06, pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> He didn't ask for a link. He asked who I was and why should he care.
>> >
>> >No he didn't, he said:
>> >
>> >"and who are you ?
>> >and what / where is your firewall doc ?"
>> >
>> >and this was after you said:
>> >
>> >"Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is there?"
>> >
>> >First angry words were yours. Please development some people skills,
>> >or at least reflect before posting. Actually don't bother, this is
>> >really entertaining and has made my Friday.
>> >
>>
>> Wrong...His FIRST e-mail said, "Who are you and why should we care?" and
>THAT is when I responded the way I did.
>>
>
>Really, could you show where this was? Because looking at the archives
>(http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-August/067802.html) and
>through my mail
>what I see is:
>
>1. your original post
>2. request for more information
This is EXACTLY where he says, "Who are you and why should we care. Those were his exact words."
What he SHOULD have said was, "Who are you and what document." *IF* he felt the need to reply at all.
>3. your response of "Then there's no reason for you to fricken reply, is
>there?"
>4. request for you to post your doc to the wiki
>5. you say you had it on forums but stopped monitoring because
>(shock!) people upset you.
>6. a further request to put it on the wiki
>7. Karnabir saying:
> and who are you ?
> and what / where is your firewall doc ?
>8. you start whining
>
>Cian
>_______________________________________________
>CentOS mailing list
>CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
