Kent Fredric wrote: > On 6/9/07, Zachary Grafton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Friday 08 June 2007 19:29, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: >> > On Samstag, 9. Juni 2007, »Q« wrote: >> > > In <news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> > > >> > > "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > > > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: >> > > > > b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > > > Really. If you think there's a problem, explain it. You get >> > > > > > attacked? Insist. Prove them they are wrong. >> > > > > >> > > > > Just curious: Did you ever try this with Jakub? >> > > > >> > > > I did. >> > > > >> > > > And after some arguments a different dev came in and recognized >> the >> > > > bug as a real bug... >> > > >> > > I've seen that happen a few times. IME, jakub is usually right, but >> > > whether he's right or wrong he's very stubborn. It's possible to >> > > wrangle the bug yourself, asking another dev to have a look at it, >> > > instead of arguing with Jakub until somebody notices. >> > >> > Jakub is like a spam filter who filters out 100% of the spam. >> Sadly, he >> > filters a fair amount of ham too - and if your ham got filtered the >> option >> > to get it recognized as ham are hard to find and not easy to use ;) >> > >> > His user interface could be improved.... >> >> Maybe someone should submit a bug report.... > > http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html > > I tried . Critical bug, but was considered 'invalid' by the > prayer-wranglers. > > >
Let me guess, Jakub closed it? LOL Can I also assume he decided to stay? I read he was leaving a while back. Dale :-) :-) :-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
