Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:37:37 +0200 > > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Erm, not really? This is about proper usage of GLEP42 stuff. > > Yes, it is about proper usage of GLEP 42. This news item is one example > of that. > > > There's nothing critical about your * stuff. > > Sure there is. If users aren't informed about the change in an > appropriate manner, the users get annoyed. > > You're trying to sabotage this based upon arguments over wording > technicalities. Where is your evidence that this is not delivering > what is best for affected users?
By the way on 03.03.2007 15:14 Ciaran McCreesh also wrote: > No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as > possible. You have absolutely nothing to contribute, as evidenced by > every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and > given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of my time > you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your noise ever > again. You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, and your > past behaviour has shown that you'll stoop to any kind of dirty > trickery and abuse of the system that you think you can get away with > rather than having a proper technical discussion. For your interest, I do not consider it as a "proper technical discussion" if someone asks for evidence without delivering it himself instead of writing one third of the discussion to > make lots of noise about it (again a quoted from Ciaran McCreesh, written by him on 11.02.2007 18:40) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
