Re: Should this be how i am supposed to act in mailing list discussions ?
Sven Luther a écrit :
>[...]
>What else can i say, i just want to point out one thing from your own
post :
>
>On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 03:49:06PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>
>
>>Sven wrote :
>>
>>
>>>Indeed. My one-email-per-day-per-thread ipolicy is suspended until this
>>>issue is solved, at least for question concerning this issue :)
>>>
>>>
>>So in summary, 4 people warned you about your inadequate attitude, and
>>the only replies these people got were yours, violating your
>>one-email-per-day-per-thread policy.
>>
>>
>
>So, it is clear that you didn't read what i wrote, which in the past
prompted
>me to repeat myself.
>
I confess not having read all of your limited mails. But, don't tell me
what I missed...
>You say this behavior is not acceptable, so, what do you
>propose instead ?
>
>
I don't know about what you expect a proposal from me. If you want a
proposal of how to react to Michael Banck's mail, I think the subject of
my reply to yours clearly indicates that it would have been better not
to reply.
If you still wanted to reply, you could have replied seriously, with
something like this:
"
Michael, I first stated
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg00658.html) that I was
breaking a resolution of keeping silent, once. Since I ended up with 28
messages on that thread, you replied to my message noting I had broken
my resolution.
[...]
I realized that I am unable to respect this self-imposed policy, and
will no longer pretend to follow such a policy.
[I will rather attempt to control myself by method foo. Sorry and thanks.]
Friendly,
Sven Luther
"
If you think such a reply isn't worth sending to the list, then a reply
pretending to be funny is not worth sending neither.
>So, is this like i am supposed to behave in email exchanges ?
>
No. Your message starts with a long part which I'm not sure how to
describe. In any case, this part is clearly not a reply to my message.
Yet, you put it in reply to me. Not after the part which actually
replies to me, because your reply leads to a wider discussion, but
before. Clearly, this part has nothing to do in a reply to me. I don't
see how it would have anything to do in this thread neither, since this
thread is about your communication/oversensitivity issues. Perhaps you
meant to reply that in the thread which triggered this one. If not, open
a new thread (if you think this really brings new information worth
opening a new thread).
Reply to: