| 1 |
On Saturday 29 March 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I, too, know what it's like to receive a reply to one of my |
| 3 |
> > questions which I find to be unhelpful and aggravating. However, |
| 4 |
> > "two wrongs don't make a right" and no-one benefits from an angry |
| 5 |
> > response. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Oh, so it's now my fault for responding to a flamebait? Nice. It's |
| 8 |
> not the aggressor who's doing something wrong? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I started this, so I guess I have the right to make the following |
| 11 |
request: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Can we drop this sub-thread now, please? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Michael, I don't see how you could read my original post as flamebait. |
| 16 |
You were not supposed to respond, I did not intend you to take offence |
| 17 |
and it was a harmless joke. Where I come from it's a self-deprecating |
| 18 |
in-joke and it goes like this: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Q: Hmmm, app xyz is broken. What could be wrong? |
| 21 |
A: It's software. Come now, you really didn't expect it to work did you? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You have every right in the world to take away from this thread whatever |
| 24 |
you want, and I have now explained publicly what I meant. If we still |
| 25 |
disagree, then that's 100% fine by me but I think we should get this |
| 26 |
out of these other fine folk's inbox. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
You have an answer and a solution that appears to suit you. That's a |
| 29 |
good point to end this at. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 33 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives