On Thu, 5 May 2011, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday, May 05, 2011 07:19:40 AM Dag Wieers wrote: >> I am sorry for this. Because this mail arrived in my inbox, I was >> confident Jean-Marc was mailing me privately. So my response is how I >> reply privately. I did not intend to send this to the list. > > As much as I respect your hard work on RPMforge over the years, I must > comment on this. > > If one replies differently in public than in private, it will leak > publicly at some point, and the duplicity will be found out. E-mails, > once sent, are written records, and can be copied and sent around all > over. It is best to have the same face publicly as privately; that can > either mean restraint in private or totally 'letting it all hang out' in > public, as the sender of the message sees fit. > > Having and raising five children has taught me extraordinarily valuable > lessons on this, especially on how 'talking behind another's back' > always comes back around, and always creates ill will. There's nothing wrong with what I said. Nor the content, nor the tone. I stated the same thing publically as well, both here as elsewhere (blog, mailinglist, ...). The "double standards" theme is probably because of "So my response is how I reply privately." which is not what I meanted to say, I was simply pointing out that my reply was intended privately. But English is not my native language. The only reason I apologised is because I don't think it should have been sent to the list, to not aggravate others needlessly. -- -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, info at dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]