as a longtime lurker and very rare poster to the list...
i'm most unhappy when this sort of non-sense populates
the list...
Thomas is dedicated, technically excellent and enormously fair... given
the inane nature of these sideline (really gutter) discussions...
speaking quite honestly, i feel better about the FVWM project knowing
Thomas Adam is involved with it...
i certainly don't feel he has any need to justify himself...
you, on the other hand, had full opportunity to become involved
with the list in the appropriate manner... i.e. technical
feedback and discussion regarding whatever aspects of FVWM
you feel useful towards it's improvement...
please, may we have some end to this periodic nonsense, which
i honestly feel serves no purpose but to attack someone
i find to be a very fine individual...
finally, i do know Thomas personally... my opinion is based
fully upon his dedicated assistance towards developing FVWM
and supporting it on this list.
B.
Harry portobello wrote:
Hullo,
On 31 August 2011 09:06, Thomas Funk<t.f...@web.de> wrote:
Hi Harry,
as I red your email, my first impression was, to take up the cudgels for Thomas
and will told you, that this posting hasn't belong on a public board. But
anyway,
you've done it, so I add one's two cents ...
Yes, Thomas is sometimes abrasive, shortspoken and, if the other doesn't rtfm
and ask his question the 26th time he becomes angry. But he answers every
question, gives constructive feedback and is the most time friendly with a
complete own british humor.
I'm quite surprised by the amount of "support" received here for
Thomas; it contradicts what I've been told which makes me wonder who
is "right", but clearly there's still a problem here regardless of
that, and I'm not wanting to staet a tug-o-war.
I'm still convinced that there's room for improvement here and until
then am keen for Thomas to respond - so that those who have raised
concern can see for themselves what's what. I do not know of those
who've spoken to me if they're mentioned their concerns publicly or
not; I would hope they have, even if it's as a private email to Thomas
directly.
No this is not a witch-hunt, but Thomas, silence is a bad thing in
times like these.
Terms like "abrasive" or "short" don't sit well with most people,
least of all those who wish to contribute. Thomas, how do you plan to
moderate these observations?
Harry
