Re: followup to my time-management question
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> I did eventually find your post -- Date: 12 Mar 2005 04:27:47 -0800,
> Message-id: <[🔎] 87oedpkq0s.fsf@becket.becket.net>.
I started it as a new thread, and it wasn't buried in the midst of
anything else.
> Honestly, if the question was as important to you as your current
> attitude seems to indicate, I'd think that you would have attempted to
> express importance of the form of the answer you were expecting for this
> question a bit better.
"My current attitude"? It may be hugely important to you that I went
ahead and answered it myself, but it wasn't to me. Indeed, the
information I gathered was useful, but was only one of many more
important things that I took into account in voting. Many of the
nuances and understandings and "but this isn't the full story" I did
indeed take into account when I voted, but I didn't put them in my
public email because I was bending over backwards to be unbiased and
as objective as I could be in it.
> Basically, you've demanded that every candidate read every word of your
> posts, and (up until just recently) you've treated this particular
> issue as considerably less important than the other issues you were
> writing about.
It may well be less important; I haven't said it was more important.
It was stated as clearly as I thought it could be. The nice web page
that tracked all the different "official" questions asked took note of
it, and when a status report about the page was posted, I immediately
followed up and indicated that my question should not be regardad as
the same as the other time-management question, only more detailed,
but its own question.
So, rather than beat a dead horse, since I intend to ask the same
question (or much the same question) next year, what should I do
differently?
Thomas
Reply to: