On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:27:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > way. If candidates felt that by ignoring my question they wouldn't > need to explain their records in detail, they were incorrect.
Between Feb 6 and Mar 19, you sent 74 messages to debian-vote, around half a megabyte of text. (For comparison, a number of popular books, written for adults, weigh in on the shy side of 150Kb -- you've written as much content here as is contained in some trilogies). So, anyways, I tried grepping for your original question, and I was not able to find it looking for substrings such as "past" or "project". I did eventually find your post -- Date: 12 Mar 2005 04:27:47 -0800, Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In other words, after you had written three fourths of your material. And you did not indicate that you were less than satisfied with the form of any candidate's answer until it was no longer appropriate for them to respond to you. Honestly, if the question was as important to you as your current attitude seems to indicate, I'd think that you would have attempted to express importance of the form of the answer you were expecting for this question a bit better. Basically, you've demanded that every candidate read every word of your posts, and (up until just recently) you've treated this particular issue as considerably less important than the other issues you were writing about. One candidate got lucky with you, and good for that candidate. But please don't pretend that you're being fair here. Unbiased? Maybe. But not fair (nor reasonable). Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
