Hi everyone. I want to add my support to Thomas.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Harry portobello <harryportobe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hullo, > > On 31 August 2011 09:06, Thomas Funk <t.f...@web.de> wrote: > > Hi Harry, > > > > as I red your email, my first impression was, to take up the cudgels for > > Thomas > > and will told you, that this posting hasn't belong on a public board. But > > anyway, > > you've done it, so I add one's two cents ... > > > > Yes, Thomas is sometimes abrasive, shortspoken and, if the other doesn't > > rtfm > > and ask his question the 26th time he becomes angry. But he answers every > > question, gives constructive feedback and is the most time friendly with a > > complete own british humor. > > I'm quite surprised by the amount of "support" received here for > Thomas; it contradicts what I've been told which makes me wonder who > is "right", but clearly there's still a problem here regardless of > that, and I'm not wanting to staet a tug-o-war. > > I'm still convinced that there's room for improvement here and until > then am keen for Thomas to respond - so that those who have raised > concern can see for themselves what's what. I do not know of those > who've spoken to me if they're mentioned their concerns publicly or > not; I would hope they have, even if it's as a private email to Thomas > directly. > > No this is not a witch-hunt, but Thomas, silence is a bad thing in times like > these. It look like a witch-hunt to me. > Terms like "abrasive" or "short" don't sit well with most people, > least of all those who wish to contribute. Thomas, how do you plan to > moderate these observations? Harry, I don't understand what you want to achieve here. Asking information on fvwm in your first email then to start a thread where you imply that one of the most helpful people here (i.e. Thomas) is guilty of something. -- Shaika-Dzari
