From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 4 22:39:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3F3106567B for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 22:39:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerry@seibercom.net) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6970E8FC20 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 22:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnp1 with SMTP id p1so14349228ggn.13 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.97.12 with SMTP id z12mr23035926anl.84.1325716744760; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from scorpio.seibercom.net (cpe-076-182-104-150.nc.res.rr.com. [76.182.104.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j11sm79812847anl.8.2012.01.04.14.39.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from scorpio (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jerry@scorpio.seibercom.net) by scorpio.seibercom.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3TJRrk0npvz2CG5x for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:39:02 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at scorpio.seibercom.net Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:39:01 -0500 From: Jerry To: FreeBSD 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> Organization: seibercom.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAHlBMVEUAAABYRlwJCw4FAgAIBwKprDkBAQFQLR0BAgCir7VRttp8AAACAUlEQVQ4jZWUTYvbMBCGTVl8V2hX6Gg5G5FbWQdBj0lEfE7BhN4cyzi5Wt1E5L70roWy6N92xok/skkP+5IYrMcz78xIduDWpNM3vFzuA/jX5EY1AI6KHFwW/CzFuQAwqUBbV12p+CzIh6Awq7sg33pn5D64SQXAexffeuQlA/L35RrkaB551OjGfP/cAO8mCNaDcgvfky5ijoD0pAXlCQCnljiAjsJD9Ax05Ko5sZxbnLQcmM+dZg5IjREfZrWIHK0JuwU68pAGwHvfRxBundRzTxxz3r9dNUikPsEihjz2Dc4kjp1hKsJGuot4EDxaxzMoC7XqhxhOSfZrTS6gSX1JVdjp+o1PvWfekXgw3WL0g70nDEwA0H0HQsEZc8sTmFMTkWUfYWC/vdR1zQy3xLQgLwzu90QnlnFLjeiGWBjwhb4Sa42IqOg2qqS4O1/zhKokFUb1Q8Rj4Eb69WVflXEehJ35DgChVTE5n50eaGyMLOfH8AOodoSM4PVYAQgQdBulOa+knklYks3vAuQ+uX492lTl+A+e8qBV2AKoXalVKFfyuUp0pUp1ARaUHh82lv9MN+Ig7CZtgE6FNYvjlywT2VP2dMgOG46gTIWcqdfvuwyXNz0oMJNd/N5lh1YNiJt19ADTUo3VuFSNeQwVqRSrGjSCp53fk2g+Mvfk/gfoPxHeUS8MH9vRAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: FreeBSD List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:39:05 -0000 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}