was Re: [ql-users] "DIANOUX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill Waugh writes:
> No need for tantrums lads, I think I started this merely by mentioning that > I had received a virus twice from the same source, would you rather I had > kept quiet and let it spread further. > The bandwidth expended by those like myself who commented on the fact that a > virus was infecting the list is nothing compared to that expended by those > who now choose to complain about it at great length ( Per ). I submitted a reasoned explanation about why I objected to being sniped at (again) for a legitimate complaint and warning to other users. (When I sent my mail had hadnt seen yours.) In the interest of avoiding a posting of a list of some 400 email programs I felt this very small sacrifice in bandwidth to be very well worth it ;) You were under no obligation to read it - which I notice you didnt do anyway. > The good Doctor healed himself, what more can we ask, job done, nuff said, The good doctor was diagnosed by others. Only then could he heal himself! > no replies wanted. If you really were interested in bandwidth conservation you couldnt have done better than to keep out of it yourself: You can hardly expect "no replies" when you put my name to your grumble, can you? Per
