On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:38 -0700, MHR wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Doug Tucker <tuckerd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote:
> >> 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom
> >> post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard....
> >
> > I'm sorry, that last sentence was unnecessary and just rude. I don't
> > tell you how to set your email client and what your preference is toward
> > how you like to read your email. I find it completely annoying to have
> > to scroll to the bottom of a message to read a reply. I will comply
> > with the group as a whole that I chose to join, I was unaware that
> > bottom posting was preference. But I do not appreciate the tone, you
> > could have easily asked nicely or referred me to the preference policy
> > for me to follow.
> >
>
> You apparently didn't see the smiley I left out of the last sentence.... :-)
> I didn't mean it to be rude at all - no tone implied. I just noticed
> that you have posted several times to the list and all of them, until
> now, were top posts, unlike almost everyone else. I /was/ trying to
> be nice....
"It's not that hard" would have gotten you b**ch slapped even with a
smile on your face in person. Just stick to polite, it's not that
hard :D.
>
> > This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and
> > a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent
> > paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that.
> > My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone
> > else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my
> > statement I said: "Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that
> > someone hijacked my thread with." So I'm agreeing that XFS should never
> > be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file
> > system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together.
> >
>
> Yes, I've been reading the thread. I you didn't mention GFS in the
> specific post to which I was replying, but you're right, it's there in
> prior posts. So all of my commentary about XFS does not apply to your
> post. Non-sequitur - mea culpa. :-)
>
> > I already agreed and removed kernel from the update, no need to lecture.
>
> It was intended to be a gentle reminder. (You've obviously never seen
> me lecture....)
touche!
>
> > Again, if you will take the time to read instead of knee-jerking a
> > reaction in some automatic defense of your feelings, you will note that
> > I took the aim at RedHat for the issue, and said it was not CentOS's
> > problem. Read boy, read.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > And unfortunately, all based on improper understanding of what was
> > written, which makes it inappropriate in a public forum. Me thinks you
> > had seen enough of the other guy whining about his unsupported platform,
> > saw the word XFS in my paragraph, and basically quit reading and decided
> > to send your XFS rant at me. I hope from a therapeutic standpoint, it
> > helped you in some fashion.
> >
>
> You seem awfully touchy here - are you sure you're not lecturing me? :-)
>
> Take a breath, relax, you were not under attack, lecture or anything
> rude. I meant it with the best of intentions - I usually do.
Bad thing about email, it's hard to grasp tongue in cheek humor and tone
isn't it? Didn't you see my <bfg> at the end of my response?
Do you honestly, like having to scroll down with the rolly thing on your
mouse 9 times to get to the reply only to find it is not something you
cared to read? I say toss it at the top in my face where I can ignore
it with less effort.
:D
BFG!
> mhr
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
