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.