On 9 May 2013 05:44, Felix Miata <mrma...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 2013-05-09 00:02 (GMT-0400) Adam Williamson composed: > > > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 22:36 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: >> > > On 2013-05-08 10:09 (GMT+0200) Pierre-Yves Chibon composed: >>> >> > > you are replying to a 4 days old email on a thread that is no >>> > longer active? >>> >> > A: The thread was started on a Friday night. >>> >> > B: Some people don't get to read mail every day, or more than a few or >>> less >>> times a week. >>> >> > A + B = perfectly justified timing of reply. >>> >> > C: the debate was taken to every place it could possibly go, and the >> commit was reverted. >> > > So what's the point of reviving it? Sometimes, if you don't get your >> $0.02 posted in time, it's best to just sit on it. >> > > So everyone who cannot maintain currency has to catch up 100% prior to > writing a response coming to mind while reading, lest he be publicly > chastised by temporal relevance police? Likely "revival" was not the > primary objective of the late writer. The late arrival would much better > have been left ignored than have the already too long thread be further > extended by OT police commentary. > > > There is something of a difference between coming in late with a relevant and previously unconsidered point and coming in late to snipe.
-- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
