On 5 January 2011 16:35, Bastien Koert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM, tedd wrote:
>> At 2:16 AM -0500 12/30/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10-12-30 12:36 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
Yeah, that was in for a few weeks, but I believe it was Robert
Cummings
who w
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM, tedd wrote:
> At 2:16 AM -0500 12/30/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>
>> On 10-12-30 12:36 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, that was in for a few weeks, but I believe it was Robert
>>> Cummings
>>> who went out of his way to show its imperfections. Maybe we s
At 2:16 AM -0500 12/30/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 10-12-30 12:36 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
Yeah, that was in for a few weeks, but I believe it was Robert Cummings
who went out of his way to show its imperfections. Maybe we should
incorporate a syntax checker to show parse errors for the we
At 11:48 PM -0500 12/29/10, Jason Pruim wrote:
And as someone who is married as well I agree with what you said.
Sometimes it's easier to just say you're sorry then fighting even
when you know you're right.
Jason Pruim
It's much easier when you realize you are never right.
Cheers,
tedd
--
At 9:22 PM -0500 12/29/10, Daniel Brown wrote:
I'm
particularly interested in the opinions of folks who recall the old
system, but any opinions and ideas are more than welcome.
Hi Daniel:
I think it was a good idea and practice -- look forward to seeing it again.
+1
Cheers,
tedd
PS: Also,
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 10:39 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 08:23, Jason Pruim wrote:
> >
> > I seem to remember you doing the same thing from your phone Mr. Brown :P
>
> Yeah. Android finally updated that a few weeks ago. Now you can
> respond inline, as I did from my
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 08:23, Jason Pruim wrote:
>
> I seem to remember you doing the same thing from your phone Mr. Brown :P
Yeah. Android finally updated that a few weeks ago. Now you can
respond inline, as I did from my DROID with that last post. ;-P
--
Network Infrastructure Manage
Jason Pruim
On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2010 11:48 PM, "Jason Pruim" wrote:
>>
>> Weren't you playing with the possibility of including the amount of actual
> code written as well?
>
>Yeah, that was in for a few weeks, but I believe it was Robert Cummi
On 10-12-30 12:36 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 29, 2010 11:48 PM, "Jason Pruim" wrote:
Weren't you playing with the possibility of including the amount of actual
code written as well?
Yeah, that was in for a few weeks, but I believe it was Robert Cummings
who went out of his way to sh
On Dec 29, 2010 11:48 PM, "Jason Pruim" wrote:
>
> Weren't you playing with the possibility of including the amount of actual
code written as well?
Yeah, that was in for a few weeks, but I believe it was Robert Cummings
who went out of his way to show its imperfections. Maybe we should
incorp
Weren't you playing with the possibility of including the amount of actual code
written as well?
Always thought that would be pretty cool :)
And as someone who is married as well I agree with what you said. Sometimes
it's easier to just say you're sorry then fighting even when you know you're
First, I have to admit that what I did was wrong. I had assumed
(ASS-umed) that the other party in a discussion under a different
thread would understand and appreciate the irony of my email in reply
to his inappropriate message. Those of you who were barraged with the
fallout know what I mea
12 matches
Mail list logo
