On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, James Bunnell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 18:36 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
James Bunnell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 17:00 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
On May 22 it was estimated that it would take 3 weeks. Did you really need an
update on that?
i only asked. an answer such as what was given here earlier would have
sufficed. is that so hard?
But it is the same answer you already had!
ok, let's look at this differently. if i were looking for a answer to
these things from a standpoint of wanting to help, or pointing out
something that may be perceived differently somewhere else such as the
'well they are updating 3-4, why not 5'...how is that to be construed? i
think that deserves more than an aggressive response such as what
happened on irc.
Not for nothin but I thought about 200 messages ago you said you were done?
PLEASE do not answer that. Silence would be the best answer.
Regards,
--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@xxxxxxxxxxxx Spamtrap address mtd123@xxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
