>On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, pctech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Wrong...His FIRST e-mail said, "Who are you and why should we care?"
>> and THAT is when I responded the way I did.
>
>And was that the best way to respond ?
>
>You could have said who you were, and why your firewall document is
>important to the community. Or simply ignored him.
>
Maybe I did overreact. And the onus is on me for that. However, he shouldn't have fricken posted if he didn't care. I apologize to the group, as a whole for the overreaction. However, I won't respond for "sticking up for myself" when I was flamed. The forums for CentOS set the tone for WHY I overreacted.
Right or wrong, the vocal "minotiry" of any group sets the "public face" of that group. You can have 500 people, but if the 10 "loudest" people in the group act in a certain manner then the group as a whole gets the reputation of being that way.
>Kind regards,
>-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
>[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
>_______________________________________________
>CentOS mailing list
>CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
