Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did eventually find your post -- Date: 12 Mar 2005 04:27:47 -0800, > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I started it as a new thread, and it wasn't buried in the midst of anything else. > 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. "My current attitude"? It may be hugely important to you that I went ahead and answered it myself, but it wasn't to me. Indeed, the information I gathered was useful, but was only one of many more important things that I took into account in voting. Many of the nuances and understandings and "but this isn't the full story" I did indeed take into account when I voted, but I didn't put them in my public email because I was bending over backwards to be unbiased and as objective as I could be in it. > 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. It may well be less important; I haven't said it was more important. It was stated as clearly as I thought it could be. The nice web page that tracked all the different "official" questions asked took note of it, and when a status report about the page was posted, I immediately followed up and indicated that my question should not be regardad as the same as the other time-management question, only more detailed, but its own question. So, rather than beat a dead horse, since I intend to ask the same question (or much the same question) next year, what should I do differently? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
