I never said a word about not receiving a mail in 24 hours. My main objective of the second mail was to convey the information that I am willing to share more info.
Sai On May 15, 2012 7:21 PM, "Lew" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:22:43 PM UTC-7, yamanoorsai wrote: >> >> I never wrote to you personally to respond to my question. I have the >> right to write a mail as much as you do. >> >> I am sensible enough to realize that this is not a paid forum. Regarding >> my reply to the thread, I accidentally clicked on the wrong reply link. >> >> > Jim didn't imply that you wrote to him personally. His advice was > global to group posts. And these aren't "mails", they're "posts". > Regardless, > absolutely no one questioned your right to post to this group, so your > comment about having that right seems odd. > > Jim's point was that you complained about a lack of response less than > 24 hours after your first post. In that second post, you said, > "It would be really helpful if someone responded to my question." > > Jim gave you helpful advice that that kind of hurry-up prompting will > not help you, and gave reasons why. There's nothing in that to inflame > you. > > >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Jim Graham wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 05:56:12PM -0500, Yamanoor Sai Ram wrote: >>> > However, I must say that I am deeply hurt by your remarks. Looking at >>> the >>> > content of email exchange on this list, I felt bad that my research was >>> > insufficient and that I had to furnish more information. My previous >>> mail >>> > was just a thought that I am willing to share more info. >>> >>> Look at the structure of the thread---specifically, which post my post >>> was a reply to. The one you're referring to was posted AFTER the one I >>> was responding to. I was responding to the fact that you went off about >>> not getting an answer after less than 24 hours (even that is a short time >>> here). >>> >>> And like I said, lists like this (e-mail lists, Usenet newsgroups, etc.) >>> are NOT paid support forums. If you want instant answers (and an answer >>> within 24 hours is more or less an instant answer) to any question you >>> ask (sometimes you do get lucky), you will have to pay for it. If you >>> find that offensive, there's nothing I can do to help you with that. >> >> > It is better not to take offense at people's attempts to help you, Sai. > > As for your actual code, I notice that you use an integral variable > 'status' > (exact type not shown in your post) rather than a boolean or an enum. > I suggest that the latter types are more appropriate for a switch like > your > 'status'. > > As to why your code stops working after few cycles, perhaps the code you > did not post is changing something, like the value of 'status' or > something > else that interferes with your logic. There's not enough in your post for > me > to be sure, especially as I am not expert in Bluetooth connections. > > Perhaps you could post a self-contained example that illustrates your > problem, > per the advice at http://sscce.org/. > > -- > Lew > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Android Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
