Mark Haney posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 01 Feb 2006 10:11:41 -0500:
> Then I stand corrected, and I apologize. Let me do so as well. I was just rereading my (second) post, and it still could be taken as confrontational (blaming it on you), and didn't directly apologize, either. That's entirely my error. What the post said was factually correct, as was the first one, and, yes, no flaming intended as I don't choose to play those games, but it /still/ came across as blaming you for your viewpoint, which was /not/ my intention. IOW, certainly in my second post, and possibly in my first, I can now see how you /might/ take it as flaming or attack, and for that I totally and absolutely apologize, as truly, my belief is that there's not enough time in the world to waste it on non-useful things such as that. So, honestly, my intent was right, but sometimes we don't live upto our intents, and this was one such case. Thanks for taking it (the second time) as I intended, even if it /could/ have been taken otherwise! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- [email protected] mailing list
