Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/05/2006
at 07:19 AM, Steve Comstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Schmuel
That's Shmuel!
Quite right. My apologies. I meant to go back and check
spelling but it slipped through the cracks.
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
throws out brief negations with no explanation or insight.
Actually, I've been known to get quite verbose when warranted. It
varies depending on, e.g., whom I'm responding to, what resources I
have access to at the time, the nature of the problem. When someone
takes the time to check the manual and says that the text is unclear
or not obviously relevant, I'm more likely to provide insight than
when they want someone to look the message up for them. When someone
complains that I'm nitpicking, they shouldn't be surprised when they
need a nit picked and I can't be bothered to do it for them.
Contrariwise, when someone has been helpful or polite to me, I try to
make an extra effort to cover all of the bases in my reply. When I've
had access to a system I've often cut and pasted real output into
messages to illustrate my comments; that's not currently an option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
