Hi,
--- On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:22 PM, sahil
wrote:
| Thanks. I appreciate.
| But I lost the charm of asking questions at least on this forum.
>
> \--
Appreciate your interest and thanks for sharing those questions. Will help
if you can highlight your
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Shakthi Kannan
wrote:
> Sahil,
>
> --- On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:04 PM, sahil साहिल
> wrote:
> | No one raised concern about questions or approach.
> \--
>
> You received two technical replies from both Arun
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Shakthi Kannan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> --- On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Ganesh Ranganathan
> wrote:
> | No, it's a matter of list etiquette. There is a common language of
> | communication agreed upon by the
Sahil,
--- On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:04 PM, sahil साहिल
wrote:
| No one raised concern about questions or approach.
\--
You received two technical replies from both Arun and me. So, the
above is not true.
Hi,
--- On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Ganesh Ranganathan
wrote:
| No, it's a matter of list etiquette. There is a common language of
| communication agreed upon by the users of this mailing list and that is
| English.
|
| "Namaste" is not Indian culture, it's
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Ganesh Ranganathan <
ganesh.ranganathan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Udaya Kumar wrote:
>
> >
> > To be frank your first response in this thread, with solution, was the
> > correct response until it was spoiled by
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Udaya Kumar wrote:
>
> To be frank your first response in this thread, with solution, was the
> correct response until it was spoiled by you bringing 'Namaste' as note.
> All other response are waste of resource.
No, it's a matter of list
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Udaya Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Mohan R wrote:
>
> > On 23-Feb-2016 10:33, "Manokaran K" wrote:
> > >
> > > Being a
> > > group dedicated to freedom (of speech among others), I
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Mohan R wrote:
> On 23-Feb-2016 10:33, "Manokaran K" wrote:
> >
> > Being a
> > group dedicated to freedom (of speech among others), I don't think its
> > right to object to anything thats not a personal attack.
>
+1
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Mohan R wrote:
> On 23-Feb-2016 10:33, "Manokaran K" wrote:
> >
> > Being a
> > group dedicated to freedom (of speech among others), I don't think its
> > right to object to anything thats not a personal attack.
>
> So
On 23-Feb-2016 10:33, "Manokaran K" wrote:
>
> Being a
> group dedicated to freedom (of speech among others), I don't think its
> right to object to anything thats not a personal attack.
So what qualifies as objectionable under freedom of speech? Anyone can
vomit some shit
11 matches
Mail list logo