This is the mail archive of the cygwin-talk mailing list for the cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Blobthrowers thread (RE: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read))


On 19 April 2006 19:26, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:

  Right, I'm going to weigh in now.  And just as a precaution, in case Hannu
is a completely irrational unreasonable arsehole, "No personal offence
intended!" ;-)

  See how cleverly I worded that?

> cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:20:08PM -0500, Gary R. (Mr.
>> Predictable) Van Sickle wrote:

>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing
>>>>> words of type "please"... And as a precaution;
>>>>> in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting:
>>>>> "No personal offense intended!" ;-)
>>>>> Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a
>>>>> lot.
>>>> 
>>>> You'd be much better served if you just made points without this
>>>> creepy (paranoid?) need to drag me into a discussion.
>>> 
>>> How did I know he'd take offense at your clarification that there was
>>> indeed "no personal offense intended", Hannu?
> 
>  Well, that - and other things I write - seems to trigger it quite nicely. I
> see this as a sign for a pickyness that that I find rather irritating.
> 
> CGF, there you have my paranoia - and BTW; did you see that smiley? It was a
> chance for you to take that note less seriously than you did. Think about
> it; wouldn't that have been a more pleasent "road" to travel?

  A thing that is not in question does not need "clarification".

  Therefore taking this kind of "precaution" when making an uncontroversial
post about a boring technical matter is to imply that the person mentioned is
irrational and unreasonable.

  To make that kind of accusation against someone, even if implicitly, is an
insult and I don't see why they shouldn't be offended, and the bogusness of
hiding the accusation behind an un-called-for apology compounds that insult
with hypocrisy.

>> Wow.  Sorry if I touched a nerve there Gary.  That comment was
>> entirely directed at Garbage Collector.  I don't see any reason why
>> my name has to show up in this previously interesting technical
>> discussion.
> 
>  So, you now picked out the fact that I use a spamcatching email address -
> that spells out something you dispise/catches your eyes in a wrong way - and
> throw that in my face?

  Now you're being paranoid.  It's your email handle, you chose it.  All he
did was use it to refer to you, and in an entirely literal straightforward and
matter of fact way.

>  And you ask why your name popped up!?

  Yep, and now I'm asking, because I don't believe that something that happens
later in time can be the cause of something that occurred earlier in time, so
I don't believe that his referring to you as "Garbage Collector" in the third
post could have caused his name to "pop up" in the first post.

  Indeed, it didn't "pop up", as if it just did so all by itself.  *You*
introduced it without any prior context or necessity.  And to respond to
*that* IS rational and reasonable.

>> If you want to make out-of-the-blue observations about me then this
>> is not the mailing list for it.
>> 
>> cgf
> 
>  ... and there you had more blobthrowing.

  What are you gibbering about?  "Out-of-the-blue observation" is a completely
non-pejorative and entirely literally accurate description of your unnecessary
and irrelevant comment.  You're the one casting aspersions here.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]