In article <00a501c287fe$d1851d00$4f6887d9@asusone>, dndsystems1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Malcolm Cadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:51 PM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? >> >> In article <01d701c286ae$2bf4f320$91f4193e@asusone>, dndsystems1 >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM >> >Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? >> >> >I know from what you have said that you have used >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> >This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, >nothing >> >else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is >deleted >> >as spam automatically. If I use another computer to read the list >> >nothing gets deleted and I can see all. This is when I caught >Dilwyn >> >Jones, Tony Tebby, Alex Wells and maybe one or two others using the >> >wrong address. I always try to reply using my correct (different) >> >address hoping they will catch on. >> >> Dennis, >> >> Looking at the header of your above reply on the list it is clear >that >> the address being used is - '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> >> ... see below > >> >> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 22:30:00 +0000 >> Message-ID: <01d701c286ae$2bf4f320$91f4193e@asusone> >> From: "dndsystems1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> References: <3DCA1F6D.32579.51B739@localhost> >> Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? >> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:46:25 -0000 >> >> So this is where the confusion over your email address lays. >> >> If you are saying that you have a 'filter' applied - that rejects >any >> email to this address ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) other than that >from >> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] - then you should make that VERY CLEAR to >> everyone who replies to you. >> >> By the above rules - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - as a sender address would be >> rejected by your filter. >> >> You have now made it clear, below, that - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - is your >> preferred address for contact. >> >> This was obviously not clear to other people before. >> >> >If anyone wants to contact D&D Systems the front door is >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >as in all advertising for over a year. Postal, fax & phone are all >> >included. Look on the web www.q40.de. Where is the hard to contact >> >bit? >> > >> >Nobody has been given the Supanet address above to use. It was used >2 >> >years ago for a different purpose, it has never been public. >> > >> >My Email to Tony Tebby was on 08.10.02 18:44 ? Now what? >> > >> >Dennis - D&D Systems >> >> -- >> Malcolm Cadman > >It gets much worse than that, Malcolm, I was away and Derek told me >what was happening, I phoned him and said "Tell Wolfgang to send to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll sort it later when I get back". Yesterday Derek >told me "Actually I didn't send [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sent 1 (or 2?) of your >private addresses". Oh my God! > >I have been phoning my wife to drag the sales email in and look for >Wolfgang, she reports back to me "No can't see it" my reply "Ok well >check again in a few days when you can". She replies, "Right oh >Captain, your every wish is my command" (actually I think I may have >dreamt the last bit!). I thought "That Wolfy is making my life a >misery, the �$%^ &*()^%, wait until I see him". > >I have called Wolfgang a fool on this list for using the wrong address >while I was waiting for his incomming. :-))) > >Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. How wrong can things go? > >Wolfgang, the above mess is D&Ds fault. Please accept my apology on >behalf of D&D. I will not call you a fool again but can I still call >you WolfGanster - sorry just kidding. > >Tony Firshman was right from the word go. There was something >fundamentally wrong in what we were doing. I just wasn't here all the >time to fix things that I did not know were wrong. Tony, the next time >you give me advice wave your finger at me so I listen more. > >Malcom, its a bit of a mess really, what do think. Funny now though. > >Dennis - D&D Systems
Yes, it does seem to have got into a mess. I can understand that you are engrossed in assembling hardware, and things just slipped at bit. All can be resolved by making sensible agreements. Users need good new hardware coming through, which is what Q60 is. We also need our OS to be developed to an even higher quality, which is what Wolfgang is trying to do for SMSQ/E. Good news is that Derek is definitely coming to the London Show with a Q60. So, no doubt those who need to talk will get an opportunity. Take care with the soldering iron not to burn your fingers too often :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
