Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 09:15, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>>The fact that I tend to agree with you about much of Red Hat's business
>>practices and support of the community doesn't change the fact that it's
>>absurd for you to turn discussions of Debian, SuSE, et cetera into
>>billboards for advertising your favorite distribution.
>
>
> I don't think the discussion was _on_ Debian, but what someone could do
> with a 64MB system. You offered Debian. That was fine. I didn't
> disagree with that at all.
I wasn't saying that this conversation was about Debian.
>
> But how my offering a _specific_ GUI that runs will in 64MB on ~200MHz
> by installing Fedora Core 2 a "billboard for advertising [my] favorite
> distribution" any more than your offer of Debian?
That particular comment wasn't in regards to this specific discussion.
It was a more general comment about some of your activity on various
mailing lists.
>
>
>>Who said anything about "no one" paying attention to you? Not I,
>>surely. I said only that "people" (meaning some, not all, people) would
>>probably pay you more attention if (et cetera). This was in response to
>>your own complaints that we didn't pay attention to your much-vaunted
>>first person experience.
>
>
> I wrote _2_ sentences in my _2nd_ post that _two_ people quoted.
> In fact, my first 2 posts that precede all the non-sense were
> _very_ "on-point." Don't want to re-read them? Here we go ...
>
[snip]
>
> Now if those are "tangents" (especially answering your "question" on the
> installer requirements), then I'm _guilty_ as charged!
>
You've misplaced the context of my statements.
>
>>Insinuating that I've said nothing you say is of value is a cheap
>>tactic, and I suspect nobody on this list is so stupid as to fall for it.
>
>
> Dude, re-read the thread. Look at how _you_ approached and _you_ took
> it for a "wild ride," even though I _tried_ to be "short and sweet" on
> _technical_specifics_.
>
> Also note that I don't start accusing you until you start accusing me.
> Not that it matters "who starts it," because we _all_lose_!
That's patently false.
>
>
>>Wheee. So, now, I'm not allowed to question information that isn't
>>evident? Is that it?
>
>
> Re-read the thread.
>
>
>>Is this about ME now? ... cut ...
>
>
> Apparently we can't "just get along." So I'm not responding to you
> anymore. I'm not even going to look at this anymore, because it's only
> going to hurt the list.
>
> Let's just make it a rule not to respond to each other. I'm stay clear
> of threads you post in. E.g., in this thread, since you posted first, I
> would have _not_ interjected my $0.02 on XFCE/Fedora, or even the
> memory/CPU comment.
>
> I'll just stay clear because it's apparent we can't respect each other
> enough. Fair?
>
No. That's ludicrous. You often have valuable insights to offer. The
fact that you occasionally fail to do so without being accusatory or
otherwise unpleasant is the problem, not the fact that you get involved
in discussions. I don't even call you on your marginally off-topic
rambles (because it's only marginally off-topic, generally speaking)
unless it is illustrative of some other matter at hand to do so.
The only occasions on which I issue complaints about you are those
wherein you address me, or refer to me, directly in a less than polite
manner. Once you open that door, I have no compunctions (obviously)
about giving you a taste of shoe leather. I'm more than happy to live
in peace with those who don't present offensive behavior, but I'm not a rug.
That's all there is to it.
You don't get to play the martyr with me. Get involved in discussions
when you want to, but if you get judgmental with me I will feed you your
words.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:16:46 EDT