> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Mary Gardiner wrote: >> Second, there remains a vast difference between stating that you >> did not receive a reply to your email, and stating that SLUG >> "did not bother to respond". The final paragraph of your article >> is a misrepresentation of what took place, and unfairly portrays >> SLUG as having ignored an inquiry that, in fact, the SLUG >> committee did not receive.
Michael Still wrote: > Which is exactly the same complaint that I have this Sam's behaviour > towards CLUG. Especially given Tridge's extreme efforts towards > contactability. > Mark, is there any progress on this issue? My 2 cents worth: sue them for 3 BILLON dollars :-) -- Mike Lake Uni of Technol., Sydney UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER ======================================================================== This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. ======================================================================== -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
