> > > He wrote that he is pissed off... > > > > If you quoted him correctly before, you'd know it was not meant as an > > attack. He wrote "[...] this latest thread just started to piss me off." > > It's not about you, neither about your work. It's about this thread! > > People have been extremely understanding in this thread for long but > > asking for the same information over and over again and those questions > > being ignored sure is > > If he is interested in a real discussion, he could try to be more obvious > and avoid to point to questionable claims. Since you refused to give and references to your claims he searched himself and came up with those articles. At least he came up with something that we can base a discussion on, maybe it be true or not, serious or not. It would have been so easy to explain, where those articles are not correct. Instead of using this excellent opportunity to explain the background, you refused to discuss it at all.
> There is a different way of asking that does not create the impression that > you stand behind the claims from a quoted URL. The information given from this URLs seemed to explain things a bit and do not look like completely wrong. I'd rather have some questionable reference that we can talk about than no reference at all. Even lies and questionable articles can be used for discussion. You agree that referring to a non public email attack is of absolutely no value nor interest for us. You might want to publish those email threads, if you want to prove your point. Sascha
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
