I did not elaborate on "Not feasible" in my original response, it's true, but as with other "Why isn't XYZ OS supported?" feature requests, it didn't really need any. A simple not-feasible is a good enough response to that.
But by the point of the follow-up response you complained about, others had already gone into detail about why it wasn't doable. The situation was clear at that point, but he persisted with asking if there was an update and saying there might be hope for this one day. Since he wasn't getting the message that this wasn't going to happen, because it isn't what he wanted to hear, I stepped in with a firm, clear response. Had I gone into depth like you seem to have wanted it wouldn't have made any difference; I'd only have been rehashing the same things everyone else said that he didn't listen to either.
Dude, he isn't obligated to say why it isn't feasible, nor it is expected. Op also didn't ask for the reasons why either. He made a request, lummox said it isn't feasible. That's that. Then he asked again if this could happen in the future, to wich lummox answered saying it could never happen.
Not explaining something isn't making anyone a fool. And if it's his software, his job, as you say, he can do and treat it however he wants, giving the fact that he was not rude. Literally not your business O.o Stop trying to be a knight in shining armor over non issues. | |
and im tryna play dbz games