Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:16:30 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation Message-ID: <201201040016.q040GUA6013103@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <20120103173943.5b47afc6@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> wrote:
> Chad Perrin articulated:
>
> > > Now you have really peaked my interest. On any given day, on a
> > > Windows based forum, the terms: "FreePiss", open-sore", "Lsuck"
> > > etcetera are freely thrown around. On Linux based forums, terms
> > > like: "Winblows", "Microsucks", etcetera are freely used. Would you
> > > please be so kind as to explain to me why it is morally correct to
> > > use one set of terms but not the other? It is either right or it is
> > > wrong. You cannot be slightly pregnant. I personally find such
> > > terms morally repugnant; however, since they are commonly used on
> > > this forum it appears that they are socially acceptable. Would you
> > > not concur or are you going to try and bullshit your way out of
> > > this one?
> >
> > 1. I didn't say it was "morally correct" to use one set of derogatory
> > forms and "morally incorrect" to use the other. You are attributing
> > arguments to me I never made.
>
> I just spent a half hour rereading every post on this thread to see if
> I had inadvertently stated that you had stated in any way that it was
> "morally correct". Guess what, there aren't any such statements.
Jerry demonstrates, yet again, his intellectual dishonesty, and blindness.
Anyone who reads what Jerry actually wrote, _as_quoted_verbaitm_above_,
an -- unlike former President Clinton, understands what "is' means -- will
have no trouble verifying that Jerry *did8, in fact, impute that viewpoint
to Chad.
> Neither did I make a claim that you supported such actions. I never
> attributed any such remarks to you. I simple asked for you to explain
> why it would be morally correct to do so.
Jerry lies. nothing unusual about that, though.
Jerry's reading comprehension skills -- of his *own* writing _ ar
seriously lacking.
He can't even _honestly_, or _accurately_ report what he previously
wrote. Even when he quotes it.
He did *NOT* ask the prior poster to explain "why it _would_be_ morally
correct..." HE demanded that they explain "why it *IS* morally
correct..."
Implicit in that choice of verb ("is") is a presumption that the
other person accepts/believes the 'truth' of the claim for which
the explananation is demanded.
Given his constant criticizm of other's writing and/or reading skills,
Jerry cannot -- "believably", that is -- claim that this was an
inavertent/unintentional error in usage on his part.
> Your reading comprehensive
> skills are seriously lacking. The fact that you would spend time to
> defend yourself against a non-existent claim totally amazes me.
The extent -- both in breadth, and depth -- of Jerry's delusions
is not merely 'impressive; it is *truely* amazing. As is his constant
projection of _his_ deficiencies on others.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201201040016.q040GUA6013103>