On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:16:59PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:42:42PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > Because: > > > > ... > > > thanks! nice summary. > > I replied in my other mail to the things I disagreed with (as is > > traditional) but it occurred to me I ought to send a positive note > > about this: > > > > Thanks for being easy to convince! > > :) thanks, appreciate! > > > I also commend the phrasing of your original question with `why'. > > That could be read as rhetorical, but even so it invited a reasoned > > disagreement. > > I absolutly ment it the simple way I wrote it: "why" and I'm glad you > understood it that way.
I didn't, but I'm glad you did mean it that way (and am going to keep that in mind for future reference -- if people try to be rhetorical, I'll pretend they aren't, since that might get the discussion forward, and would be more constructive than just shutting up) > I've found that often, short, friendly mails to the > point are much better than long emails. Me too! It's partly why I made that suggestion in the Code of Conduct. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
