On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Rodney Dawes <rodney.da...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 15:37 -0500, Bedwell, Jordon wrote: >> I don't need to troll Canonical, you lot do just fine at that by >> yourselves. But I'll leave it to a Canonical employee to assume that >> everybody who disagrees must be a troll and therefore is one by >> default because they are blunt and don't sprinkle love and care all >> over their statements as if it's a new born baby. > > No, I think you're a troll, because you aren't being blunt, but rather > are replying to a thread with a sense of self-righteousness and > self-entitlement; only because someone replied to it from a > canonical.com address; so that you can rant about a completely unrelated > project to which the original message in the thread is about. Your > replies fit the exact behavior of trolling. Had I sent the *exact* same > message as my original reply to the original repost, from any of my > other addresses, you would not have even replied. The fact you mentioned > Canonical at all, clearly stated your intent was to troll the thread.
Self-righteousness eh? Self-entitlement eh? So everybody who puts up a fight must be that is what you're implying? Everybody who rants must be that eh? It was related and was used as a point in the case. Too short-sighted and ignorant to see it. I'm sure you would be a great resource on what a troll is. No, I would have still replied so don't confuse me with somebody who cares who you are (which is a nobody to me -- and yes, I do reply to nobodies -- just another Canonical employee) or somebody who discriminates based on email. I would have just modified it a bit not to be so direct but a little more indirect. So, now if you mention a company you must also be a troll? First of all, don't assume what I would have or have not done. Your assumption and ignorant diagnosis of what a person MUST be intrigues me too. I don't care who you are I just happened to notice. I would have still replied. > And again, because it obviously wasn't clear the first time: > Everyone who works at Canonical does not work on the Design team, or > the Unity team, or the same team, whatever team you are trying to vent > your frustration about. If you do wish to discuss specific concerns with > the Design team about Unity, then there is a mailing list for that. It > is called "unity-design" in fact. Unless it wasn't obviously clear the first time, I don't care if you are or aren't apart of that Canonical team. You confuse a rant with frustration, I have no frustration with Ubuntu. If I had frustration with Ubuntu I would take a shot every chance I get, but alas I do not. Perhaps I should so that I could fulfill the role you have given me. > Also, for the record, Gwibber is not a Canonical project, since you > seem to be assuming it is. No, again you are assuming. Unable to follow the entire argument as a whole. Nice to know you can jump into my head and gather incorrect facts though. > So please stop making poor assumptions Dear Pot, I am the kettle and this letter is to inform you that you are also black. P.S. This is my last reply because I do not want to derail this thread anymore then I have. Take it to a private email if you want to continue this game otherwise I'll ignore anymore public replies directed to me in public from you. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
