MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-05-03 22:53:05 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>>> because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions about
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Hey, can you do anything else but insult people?
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. I've reread the email and I'm surprised that
> you think there are "at least 3 insults" in it. I count one and that was
> an intentional illustration of the unnecessarily insulting language it
> was replying to.
>
> Dumb \Dumb\, a. [...]
>
> 2. Not willing to speak; mute; silent; not speaking; not
> accompanied by words;
I'm sorry to have misunderstood you. The meaning of dumb I was referring
to is slightly different.
Quoting from dictionary.reference.com:
--------------------------------------
dumb ( P )
adj. dumb·er, dumb·est
1.a Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects.
1.b Often Offensive. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. See
Usage Note at mute.
2. Temporarily speechless, as with shock or fear: I was dumb with disbelief.
3. Unwilling to speak; taciturn.
[...]
6. Conspicuously unintelligent; stupid: dumb officials; a dumb decision.
[...]
Our Living Language In ordinary spoken English, a sentence such as He is
dumb will be interpreted to mean “He is stupid” rather than “He lacks the
power of speech.” “Lacking the power of speech” is, however, the original
sense of the word, but it has been eclipsed by the meaning “stupid.”
--------------------------------------
> It seems an apt description of how some XFree86 developers reacted to
> questions. They went dumb. Other XFree86 developers were helpful, but
> they are not the reason I plan to stop using it, so I do not blame them.
I mistook your phrase "its dumb developers" as referring to all XFree86
developers. Now that you clarified it, it doesn't look like an insult
anymore.
Carl-Daniel
