Please, I don't want to be misunderstood :-)
> But to make a statement like this...
>
> > Thoughts, are what this whole discussion thing is about isn't it. I think
> that there would be a lot less childish bickering in this forum if we tried
> to be a little more open-minded, and understand the DynAPI and each other
> more.
>
> after a statement like this...
>
> > Agreed, IF those were my intentions. I only said that I would offer a
> self-distribution version IF and ONLY IF, my upgrades/fixes are not welcomed
> with open arms (once evaluated and tested)
> leads one to ponder is all.
I am sorry that you misunderstood me, but this is not bickering, I was just trying to
explain a little better since you also misunderstood me the first time (no offence
intended by any of this) :-)
> I think we all owe this group pretty solid allegiance
I couldn't agree more... :-)
> and shouldn't place
> new ideas on a platter of "welcome them with open arms or... ". Especially
> before anyone has even seen the new code.
You seem to be very defensive (again, no offence intended), this was not a threat at
all... just a statement. Again, I was only trying to explain why I even mentioned that
if some of my methodologies were not accepted, that I would have my own release, which
would not be to break away from the group (even if I had my own release, I would still
follow closely, and continue to submit patches/bugs).
> My first post was just an observation and my perspective
always welcomed... :-)
> related to further
> diluting the distribution base of this API
Again, not my intentions at all.
--proteanman
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-help
