Hi,
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
You have requested a feature here (you know - additional work from other
people), talking about errors without exactly showing the errors.
I requested WHAT? Doesn't anybody READ anymore? Read again please:
Yes. But this time: just to fool you, not to guide you.
I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
Does this sound like a request to you?
What else?
Do you read "I request a gcc 3.x package immediately" out of this?
Not "immediately", but "request".
a simple question
OK. So you got a complex answer to a so-called "simple" question which you
had wanted to better ignore.
Sorry that i wasted my time...
Details were totally uninteresting in this case. But it seems that some
people need to bash around without reason on everything that possibly
could come from a newbie because it sounds simple.
Xou seem to be a much more crazy fool that I am under my cover.
Do you like to get the address of my default psychiatrist?
I won't give it to you; it is my wife & family.
The usual penalty for that is 101% ignorance, so please feel good now or
eat the big letters.
Yeah sure... Ignorance is bliss...
You simply should have obeyed some of the big letters, and nobody would
have shouted you being ignorant.
But with this extent and this stupid reaction, take this thread as closed.
You can earn the chance again to get personal answers from me if you
re-qualify to ask questions.
But I bet you do not understand...
Cheers -e
--
Eberhard Moenkeberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
