On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, James Bunnell wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 18:36 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > >> 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. Not for nothin but I thought about 200 messages ago you said you were done? PLEASE do not answer that. Silence would be the best answer. Regards, -- Tom Diehl tdiehl at rogueind.com Spamtrap address mtd123 at rogueind.com -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos