From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Title page for book latex export Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:04:37 -0400 Message-ID: <21835.1287497077@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <19644.5557.627178.686601@goeland.ups-tlse.fr> <9312871.193.1287423634931.JavaMail.root@zm-cesbio-01> <19644.43988.128890.607963@goeland.ups-tlse.fr> <28722569.197.1287437982941.JavaMail.root@zm-cesbio-01> <19645.14060.654947.268170@goeland.ups-tlse.fr> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46991 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P8CoG-0002AR-TH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:05:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P8CoF-0006A9-9Z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:05:00 -0400 Received: from vms173001pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.1]:61417) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P8CoF-00069Q-5w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:04:59 -0400 Received: from gamaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173001.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LAJ00IK9J3P8R30@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:04:38 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Jordi Inglada of "Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:13:00 +0200." <19645.14060.654947.268170@goeland.ups-tlse.fr> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Jordi Inglada Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Jordi Inglada wrote: > Nick Dokos writes: > > > > ... > > > > > > Sorry. I did not notice that my not understanding what the problem was > was going to upset anybody. I'll be more careful next time. > A couple of points: o although I meant what I said in the seriously, I was not upset. I guess my humor is dry as dust, but I can assure you I was chuckling while composing the mail. o I *certainly* was not upset at your not understanding the problem. This is exactly what the list is about. And your question was entirely appropriate for the list. o Although your post was the trigger, the rant was not meant for you personally: it was meant for the whole list. It is often the case that people describe a problem with very little detail and it takes a series of back-and-forths before we can really understand what the problem is. Sometimes that's inevitable but many times it can be avoided. My suggestion was to include enough detail in the original report so the back-and-forth can be avoided to the extent possible. So I hope I did not offend you and if I did offend you, I apologize: that was not my purpose at all, and a rant that offends but does not educate is no good at all. Nick