1 |
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 23:39 +0100, Steve Long wrote: |
3 |
> > Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
4 |
> > > That's uncalled for. There's no need to get nasty. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > I applaud your intent, but feel it would have far more effect on the |
7 |
> > atmosphere if applied to a few of your devs, rather than users who employ |
8 |
> > milder terms? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > It just seems knowingly unfair, and I don't believe that is your purpose. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Not getting into this. If your intent is to undermine, please do it |
13 |
> privately. If you're just trying to be inflammatory (as you seem to be |
14 |
> often), please put a stop to it *NOW*. |
15 |
Seemant: Please, please, learn a bit about British English idiom. |
16 |
Your gross over-reactions to both what I, and Steve Long, wrote indicate that |
17 |
while you have interpreted our words precisely, you have completely failed to |
18 |
appreciate the overall nuance of meaning in either message. Neither of which |
19 |
carries anything like the level of inflammatory obloquy which you seem to |
20 |
have deduced from them. I don't know who first uttered the phrase: "We are |
21 |
separated by our common language." or words to that effect, but I see the |
22 |
effect of it in postings to this list time and time again. It's a shame. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Like I've said before, just because you know how to type an |
25 |
> email and send it, doesn't mean you *should*. |
26 |
Indeed! You stole my very words! |
27 |
A case for the thought police I do believe! |
28 |
|
29 |
> You can check my posts to see me address anyone getting out of hand. |
30 |
Not today, thank you. |
31 |
|
32 |
For those readers who might have difficulty with this message, please rest |
33 |
assured that the second two paragraphs are intended to be jocular, and |
34 |
consult Princeton University's Wordnet system for precise meanings. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
CS |
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |