On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Doug Tucker <tuckerd at engr.smu.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote: >> 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom >> post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard.... > > I'm sorry, that last sentence was unnecessary and just rude. I don't > tell you how to set your email client and what your preference is toward > how you like to read your email. I find it completely annoying to have > to scroll to the bottom of a message to read a reply. I will comply > with the group as a whole that I chose to join, I was unaware that > bottom posting was preference. But I do not appreciate the tone, you > could have easily asked nicely or referred me to the preference policy > for me to follow. > You apparently didn't see the smiley I left out of the last sentence.... :-) I didn't mean it to be rude at all - no tone implied. I just noticed that you have posted several times to the list and all of them, until now, were top posts, unlike almost everyone else. I /was/ trying to be nice.... > This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and > a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent > paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that. > My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone > else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my > statement I said: "Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that > someone hijacked my thread with." So I'm agreeing that XFS should never > be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file > system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. > Yes, I've been reading the thread. I you didn't mention GFS in the specific post to which I was replying, but you're right, it's there in prior posts. So all of my commentary about XFS does not apply to your post. Non-sequitur - mea culpa. :-) > I already agreed and removed kernel from the update, no need to lecture. It was intended to be a gentle reminder. (You've obviously never seen me lecture....) > Again, if you will take the time to read instead of knee-jerking a > reaction in some automatic defense of your feelings, you will note that > I took the aim at RedHat for the issue, and said it was not CentOS's > problem. Read boy, read. > <snip> > > And unfortunately, all based on improper understanding of what was > written, which makes it inappropriate in a public forum. Me thinks you > had seen enough of the other guy whining about his unsupported platform, > saw the word XFS in my paragraph, and basically quit reading and decided > to send your XFS rant at me. I hope from a therapeutic standpoint, it > helped you in some fashion. > You seem awfully touchy here - are you sure you're not lecturing me? :-) Take a breath, relax, you were not under attack, lecture or anything rude. I meant it with the best of intentions - I usually do. mhr