On 04/15/16 06:40, Patrick Laimbock wrote: > On 15-04-16 13:14, g wrote: >> On 04/15/16 04:29, Patrick Laimbock wrote: >>> On 15-04-16 00:39, Andrew Daviel wrote: >> <<>> >> >> Patrick, >> >> 'threading breaking' is against centos etiquette and netiquette. >> >> replying thread breakers does nothing but encourage them to do so again. >> >> many subscribers frown on thread breakers and their responders. >> >> please help good etiquette by not responding to them. >> >> thank you. > > Please keep your posting on-list. > ===> my email to you had nothing to do with original thread; Subject: [CentOS] mount bind problems email to you "off list" was because i did not wish to add to breaking raveling of thread. doing so now is only because of your request and desire for further raveling of original thread. > It's unclear what you mean. I saw a new message on the ML and responded > to it. Where did this 'threading breaking' take place? > ===> the threading breaking took place when Andrew Daviel got too lazy to compose a new email. what he obviously did was select "reply" to a post by Robert Nichols. then in compose window, changed "Subject:" to 'Freeradius, openldap, and TLS". then he removed _all_ of text that was in 'body' and type in his problem. what he is obviously unaware of, as are you, that still in email headers where _all_ references to original thread. also, what he is obviously unaware of is that time he spent is much longer than it would have been had he simply started with a fresh, blank email composure. my apologies to rest of readers that i have further broken original thread. i extend no apologies to Andrew Dumbviel or to Patrick Lameblock. B-) -- peace out. If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes... ...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it! -+- in a world with out fences, who needs gates. CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7 tc,hago. g .