| 1 |
On 15:56 Mon 16 May, Ian Delaney wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:04:17 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I hope I won't regret this |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 12:48:12 AM JST Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 9 |
> > [...] |
| 10 |
> > [...] |
| 11 |
> > [...] |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > Applying that same rationale, it would be unfair to say that an |
| 14 |
> > > undescribed level of professionalism in communication is required |
| 15 |
> > > as well. Nothing here violates the CoC. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> No but it violates elements simply lot listed in the CoC. DO we need a |
| 20 |
> better CoC? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You need a better pair of balls; there is a chance that you will stop |
| 23 |
getting offended by random emails. |
Archives