Re: Howto run a command in message hooks (was: Re: How to send a
Hey Karl,
it may have sounded arrogant, but indeed it wasn't intended to sound
that. But...
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:35:31AM +1300, Karl. wrote:
> Given that you asked for advice, perhaps you should work on accepting
> all advice _graciously_, rather than being arrogant? You'll find it a
You are right. Given that I'm the one searching for advise, I should not
bite into the hand of people that could probably give it to me. But I
didn't think that I do, because in my opinion I just told him, that the
requested information is already there (and I confirmed it with my first
reply to him). Given that I needed to confirm it a second time to him,
my reply was a bit rude, yes, and I'm sorry for that.
> The list archives are littered with examples of people declaring that "I
> have done exactly what you told me to do" and then finding out that they
> had not. His request was entirely reasonable. Your response just puts
IMHO that case is different from the current case.
1) I wasn't following an advice to set it executable, but checked it
myself before I've written the help request.
2) I already indicated twice that I checked it (and after telling it a
second time, one should be sure that I really did it and not just tell
it).
So IMHO his first request was just a sign that he does not trust me that
I am telling the truth (but maybe reasonable), but his second request
wasn't reasonable anymore.
> you higher on the list of people who are not worth responding to (unless
> it's amusing to :-)
I know that *I* were searching for advice and therefore should provide
verbose informations to avoid unneccesary effort on the side of someone
who could help me. But the other way round is true. Just because I'm
asking for help I'm not forced to accept _all_ conditions and _wasting_
_my_ time w/o sense do I not have to accept. Off course you are write
that it could mean that I won't get help. Thats bitter, but unavoidable.
Best Regards,
Patrick