On Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 09:01:40AM -0600, Victoria Stanfield wrote: > Your reply was both unnecessary and juvenile. The guy should have read > the manual. We all know that. I'm not sure *he* knew that, but regardless, I felt my reply was completely necessary and quite accurate. I've no time or sympathy for lazy people, nor am I interested in making the slightest concession to their whining. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES! http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
- Redhat 5.4? Was: Re: thanks, ... Douglas F. Elznic
- Re: Redhat 5.4? Was: Re: than... Cristian Gafton
- Groupwise ramon
- Re: Redhat 5.4? Was: Re: than... Patrick T. Berry
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Rick Forrester
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Claire Bradford
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Drachen
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Lane J. Bryson
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Rich Kulawiec
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Victoria Stanfield
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Rich Kulawiec
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Victoria Stanfield
- Re: thanks, but no thanks chuck . mead
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Mike Edwards
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Douglas F. Elznic
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Greg Thomas
- Re: thanks, but no thanks Vidiot
- RE: thanks, but no thanks Edmunds, Keith
- RE: thanks, but no thanks rhl
- Not a Desltop OS (was: RE: thanks, but no than... Joe Klemmer
- Re: Not a Desltop OS (was: RE: thanks, but... Craig Kattner