Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:39:01 -0500 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation Message-ID: <20120104173901.43d29bcd@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20120104214744.GA16086@hemlock.hydra> References: <20120103173943.5b47afc6@scorpio> <201201040016.q040GUA6013103@mail.r-bonomi.com> <20120104061755.4659cdf8@scorpio> <20120104160012.GB8500@hemlock.hydra> <20120104123452.708ac5a7@scorpio> <20120104201324.GB13408@hemlock.hydra> <20120104161615.7506d577@scorpio> <20120104214744.GA16086@hemlock.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:47:44 -0700
Chad Perrin articulated:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:16:15PM -0500, Jerry wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:13:55 -0700 Chad Perrin articulated:
> > >
> > > Why the heck did you ask for it, then?
> >
> > Fair enough, because in your post dated: On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 23:55:26
> > -0700, you make this remark: I think the statement was more like
> > "Someone who calls it 'open sore' is clearly a mean-spirited jackass
> > who likes making trouble," rather than "Down with the
> > bourgeoisie!" I just figured I'd help clarify.
> >
> > At that point I wanted to know how you could justify the use of one
> > set of terms and not the other. I NEVER said that you made or
> > condoned those statements, something I think you might finally be
> > starting to comprehend, although I certainly would not bet my life
> > on it.
>
> This is the problem. You say you never said I condoned such
> statements, but for some utterly incomprehensible reason you decided
> to ask me to explain my (nonexistent) justification for them.
>
> What you said distinctly implied that you believed I condoned them,
> for exactly that reason, whether you *meant* to imply such a thing or
> not. I wonder if *you* are going to start to comprehend *that*.
OK Chad, this is my last post on this thread. I fully expect you to
respond; however, I don't care. I am not replying to it. I am through
feeding your psychosis.
I fully explained why I asked you a simple question. Somehow you
fail to grasp it. If you honestly do not condone it then all you had to
say was something like, "I neither condone, support nor use such
phases." That would have been the end of it. Instead, at every single
turn, you have attempted to make it look like it was a personal attack
on you. I never said you made such statements; although I fully believe
you do support them although you would probably not publicly
acknowledge it. I had seriously though about doing a search of all your
posts for the last 5 years or so and seeing if I could find proof of
it. However, since I can not profit from it I decided against investing
the time. In any case, you would probably claim that you were misquoted
or some such thing.
I have noticed that somehow you have managed to piss off at least two
other posters in the past 48 hours. In every case, you claim to have
been basically misunderstood. I wonder, could a pattern be emerging?
By the way, no asterisk was injured in the creation of this document.
{THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR CHAD AND HIS RANTINGS -- I'M OUT OF HERE}
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120104173901.43d29bcd>