[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bungles on my part (was Re: Thank you for responding)

I'm sorry for any inconvenience I've caused you.

Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Are you suggesting that this post of mine was not about a development
> > > issue?
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 10:50:59AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> > Not merely suggesting, but pointing out, as in the quote including a
> > snip from http://www.debian.org/MailingLists (again, below). -devel
> > is supposed to be a forum for the discussing of technical issues of
> > developing Debian packages, -project is supposed to be for political
> > issues of developing Debian overall.
> I was under the impression that I was discussing technical issue
> pertaining to developing a Debian package.  Specifically vchkpw.
> Please take another look at what I posted.  Here's
> a url for it, in case you deleted your copy:
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0006/msg00463.html
> I understand that there might be other other posts in this thread whidh
> did not pertain to development issues, but I fail to understand why
> you've classified my message in this fashion.
> Please explain.

I'm sorry:  many apologies.  Because of my hubris, impatience, and 
laziness (well... Larry Wall says these are good qualities for a
programmer...), in the face of hundreds of posts pouring into -devel
and -user, I began to reply first, and read later.  Then, I
compounded my error by today mailing a similar "move the thread"
request to 119 parties, using the From: of 400+ messages, some
of whom, however, were not "guilty" of OT posting, which I didn't
know, because I had not read _every_ post.  On top of that,
I failed (in ignorance, this time) to use Bcc:, the benefits
of which I have been informed by a couple of respondents wiser
than I.

With all sincere humiliation due to my  (plural)faux pas,
since you were discussing vchkpw, may I suggest that editing
the Subject: to something like 
vchkpw wrapper (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2)
might have alerted someone as clueless as myself that
the topic of that thread-branch had changed?

(In my case, probably not, since it should still have shown
up in the "tree" of GR messages... but (?) possibly...)

> Thanks,

oh, but _Thank_you_ for correcting me.

Reply to: