* Robert Millan [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:17:10 +0200]:
> Then again, I don't see any judgement on _your_ behaviour in this mail. I
> just got scrutinized for using an (admittedly inappropiate) harsh tone, but
> apparently you don't think your own tone (which was outright insulting)
> deserves any kin
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:27:39PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Robert Millan [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:13:17 +0200]:
>
> > I'd rather believe something else if I could. Do you have a better
> > explanation for:
>
> > > some people complain about my message being harsh
> > > by sending replies tha
* Robert Millan [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:13:17 +0200]:
> I'd rather believe something else if I could. Do you have a better
> explanation for:
> > some people complain about my message being harsh
> > by sending replies that are outright insulting.
Yes, that your behavior was outraging (at least it
7,00 Euro
SIE KOENEN GERNE EIN TEST KAUF MACHEN UNSERE SERVICE ZU TESTEN.SIE
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:08:56 +0200
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did. It's obvious I didn't consider them well enough, but I assure you
> when I added 'Friendly' there (which is not part of my usual signature) I was
> considering the personal factors.
This was a thin cloak for words
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:01:19PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> So I think we should setup a BOFH in DebConf,
> with policy, dak, ftp-masters, apt, etc. people,
> to check the terminology (and identify the
> subtle differences, e.g. component vs. area),
> and to write a Debian glossary,
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 01:58:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Robert Millan [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:20:03 +0200]:
>
> > I think the reason you (and the other minority of bashers in this thread)
> > are
> > annoyed is because the content of my message, not because its form.
>
> You are certainl
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:56:00PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:17:20 +0200
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just to make it clear, please don't take it as if I were recriminating
> > something to you. My understanding is that this problem is about general
> >
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:20:03 +0200
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The pattern I see is that some people complain about my message being harsh
> by sending replies that are outright insulting.
>
> I think the reason you (and the other minority of bashers in this thread) are
> annoyed is
* Robert Millan [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:20:03 +0200]:
> I think the reason you (and the other minority of bashers in this thread) are
> annoyed is because the content of my message, not because its form.
You are certainly entitled to believe that if it makes your day any
brighter.
--
Adeodato Simó
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:00:40PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> you suck.
The pattern I see is that some people complain about my message being harsh
by sending replies that are outright insulting.
I think the reason you (and the other minority of bashers in this thread) are
annoyed is because t
Russ Allbery wrote:
Giacomo Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I recommend not attributing such judgements to the configuration files
of software packages.
Sorry???
It is more that a configuration file, and BTW the same notation it is
also used by apt. Archive and
12 matches
Mail list logo
