most unreliable GNU project

[Chad Netzer]

On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 17:10, CipoFuzo wrote:

> I had no idea that anyone would look at my original
> post as flamebait.
> 
> To those that do, I must apologize.

Thanks for clarifying.  It DOES happen that things which are written are
meant one way, and taken another, particularly sarcasm.  I tried to give
some leeway in interpreting your remark, and possibly Gerhard did as
well.

In any case, I hope many of the points in my response still stand in
general, even if they don't apply to you or your response.

(Also, I saw that you have been careful, in past posts, about thanking
people for their help, which made me unsure that this post wasn't open
to a more positive interpretation.) 

> I was frustrated with all the bugs I was running into
> with imagemagick. Next time I'll count to 10.

Always a good idea. :)  I have to do it as well.

> However, I find posts that point out strongholds and
> weaknesses of sofware packages quite useful as I can
> learn from them.

Oh, I agree!  In general, however, it is best to be specific (in my
opinion), just because it gives focus to the discussion, and hopefully
keeps it in the realm of the newsgroup domain.  I think your earlier
posts about ImageMagick were good examples (ie. here are some problems
I'm having, here are limitations I've found, WHY the heck was thing done
the way it is, etc.)  You and others should feel free to post asking for
advice, or expressing opinions and experiences that can be useful.  I
think we can all agree on that.



> I see your point though.
> I'm very sorry.

Again, it happens with newsgroup postings.  Point taken, apology
accepted (if not strictly necessary for me), and I think we can all move
forward without prejudice.  Hopefully Gerhard will accept it as well.


Cheers,

-- 

Chad Netzer
(any opinion expressed is my own and not NASA's or my employer's)