| 1 |
> > > He wrote that he is pissed off... |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > If you quoted him correctly before, you'd know it was not meant as an |
| 4 |
> > attack. He wrote "[...] this latest thread just started to piss me off." |
| 5 |
> > It's not about you, neither about your work. It's about this thread! |
| 6 |
> > People have been extremely understanding in this thread for long but |
| 7 |
> > asking for the same information over and over again and those questions |
| 8 |
> > being ignored sure is |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If he is interested in a real discussion, he could try to be more obvious |
| 11 |
> and avoid to point to questionable claims. |
| 12 |
Since you refused to give and references to your claims he searched himself |
| 13 |
and came up with those articles. At least he came up with something that we |
| 14 |
can base a discussion on, maybe it be true or not, serious or not. It would |
| 15 |
have been so easy to explain, where those articles are not correct. Instead |
| 16 |
of using this excellent opportunity to explain the background, you refused to |
| 17 |
discuss it at all. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> There is a different way of asking that does not create the impression that |
| 20 |
> you stand behind the claims from a quoted URL. |
| 21 |
The information given from this URLs seemed to explain things a bit and do not |
| 22 |
look like completely wrong. I'd rather have some questionable reference that |
| 23 |
we can talk about than no reference at all. Even lies and questionable |
| 24 |
articles can be used for discussion. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You agree that referring to a non public email attack is of absolutely no |
| 27 |
value nor interest for us. You might want to publish those email threads, if |
| 28 |
you want to prove your point. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Sascha |
Archives