Blobthrowers thread (RE: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read))

Hannu E K Nevalainen
Wed Apr 19 18:26:00 GMT 2006 wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:20:08PM -0500, Gary R. (Mr.
> Predictable) Van Sickle wrote:
>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:17 PM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing
>>>> words of type "please"... And as a precaution;
>>>> in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting:
>>>> "No personal offense intended!" ;-)
>>>> Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a
>>>> lot.
>>> You'd be much better served if you just made points without this
>>> creepy (paranoid?) need to drag me into a discussion.
>> How did I know he'd take offense at your clarification that there was
>> indeed "no personal offense intended", Hannu?

 Well, that - and other things I write - seems to trigger it quite nicely. I
see this as a sign for a pickyness that that I find rather irritating.

CGF, there you have my paranoia - and BTW; did you see that smiley? It was a
chance for you to take that note less seriously than you did. Think about
it; wouldn't that have been a more pleasent "road" to travel?

> Wow.  Sorry if I touched a nerve there Gary.  That comment was
> entirely directed at Garbage Collector.  I don't see any reason why
> my name has to show up in this previously interesting technical
> discussion.

 So, you now picked out the fact that I use a spamcatching email address -
that spells out something you dispise/catches your eyes in a wrong way - and
throw that in my face?

 And you ask why your name popped up!?

> If you want to make out-of-the-blue observations about me then this
> is not the mailing list for it.
> cgf

 ... and there you had more blobthrowing.

All this makes me NOT want to get more engaged in cygwin, though I'm
building knowledge that would help in that case with a good pace.
 Result: At least one maintainer less than there could have been.

 Will I speak positively about the intellectual level on the cygwin mailing
 Some more maintainers lost, don't you think?

 Will I speak positively about the willingness to at least discuss changes
that would be to the benefit of a more clean and robust cygwin?
 Yet one or two maintainers lost, might it be so?

 More notes (implied above) could be added here...

Have a nice evening, wherever you are.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list