Am Donnerstag, den 27.11.2008, 14:20 -0500 schrieb CityK: > VDR User wrote: > > This conversation is about addressing and finding a solution > > to a problem. > > Agreed. > > > I'm not even the person who originally brought up the > > solution used in multiproto but as far as I can see, it does seem to > > be a great solution so I question why that method shouldn't be > > adopted. > > > > Fair enough, and upon casual inspection, it sounds like the multiproto > method is done well and can be adopted ... so lets move towards that > direction with that in mind and with whatever other good suggestions can > be fleshed out of the discussion. > > > I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously after your absurd > > comment. > > .... > > It's ridiculous I need to point any of this out to you but one > > possible reason is that _you_ are in fact the one trolling here. > > Afterall, the only posting you've made has absolutely nothing to do > > with the subject, while all of mine do. > > ... > > And by the way, most of us have accepted the outcome of the > > s2api/multiproto controversy. Maybe it's about time you find a way to > > move on as well. > > > > Andy's comment might have been harsh, but your earlier comments ( > http://marc.info/?l=linux-dvb&m=122763079609781&w=2) have, shall we say, > been a touch on the harsh side too and there is plenty of reason why > those might have drawn the ire of someone like Andy; specifically: CityK, by all respect, Andy is a highly qualified developer and VDR.user is just a troll. Don't confuse any more on it, or we will have a developer only list very soon and this decision will not be up to you. Cheers, Hermann _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
