* Daniel Baumann <[email protected]> [2009-03-06 10:54:02 CET]: > Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > Well, if you don't lie out your reasoning why you disagree with policy > > here, I can just think that you forgot about that part. > > i wrote "i consider it necessary, ymmv."
... in a later mail that I only saw after I replied to that one. And still that isn't really a reasoning, sorry. > >> it's a wish of yours and not a bug in the acutal meaning, read policy > >> 3.9, thanks. > > > > I did, and I even cited it to you. > > for the records, you may also want to consider that #23 was my first > reply, Yes, to which I replied. > and #33 my second as the bts did send me first the control output > of yours, and second the actual mail which came a few minutes later. Same here, so please consider similar time-based reasons that you want me to consider for you. :) > > Can you now please explain to me why > > you disagree with the should in exactly that paragraph? For convenience, > > I cite the mentioned policy part again: > > i already did, see #33 and, for your convenience, my citation of it above. No, you didn't. You said you consider it necessary but didn't mention why so which would make it possible for others to understand why you work against policy recommendations here. Thanks, Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
