Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:47:44 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation Message-ID: <20120104214744.GA16086@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20120104161615.7506d577@scorpio> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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*. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120104214744.GA16086>