also sprach Anthony Towns [2002.11.08.2335 -0500]:
> I called you an idiot, you called me a moron. Please try to keep things
> straight. And frankly, I consider someone who's able to handle being
> called an idiot more worthy of respect than someone who isn't.
can we institute debian-disputes, an
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:32:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> I'll ask again: is that the rule you would rather? That
> Anthony> you're allowed to duplicate any token of disrespect at the
> Anthony> same level -- if someone calls you names, you can call them
> Anthony> names back
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> So forgive me if I'm not terribly impressed by your attempt.
Oh, lord, the thread that would not die.
This is my last post on this thread.
Anthony> And frankly, I consider someone who's able to handle being
Anthony> called an id
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:29:46AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> How about you spend a few minutes not being ironic, not
> Anthony> being "funny", not being sarcastic or insulting, not being
> Anthony> rhetorical, and just politely and briefly explaining what
> Anthony> you think is
Em Wed, 06 Nov 2002 21:38:36 -0600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escreveu:
> >> hoping I have made my point,
>
> Anthony> That you're an idiot? Well, yes.
>
> I can see just how well this conflict resolution document is
> going to be.
The problem about Debian is we cannot invit
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 02:09:44AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
>> No. That is improbable enough to be funny. It takes a tongue
>> in cheek swipe at the mother of all geeky religious wars, that you
>> ar
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:40:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It'd be really nice if people didn't follow this pattern:
>
> * I believe doing is bad.
> * Other people don't seem to realise this self-evident truth.
> * Therefore I will do .
Well, except, of course, where equ
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 02:09:44AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> No. That is improbable enough to be funny. It takes a tongue
> in cheek swipe at the mother of all geeky religious wars, that you
> are too bured out from fighting your holy wars to e
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:21:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:21:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart from
> >> being a name calling moron, you have no
>>"Duncan" == Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Duncan> I can now see just how important this conflict resolution document is
Duncan> going to be.
If we can craft one that works, most certainly. So far, none
of us has demonstrated any ability to actuallycome up with a
techni
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart from
>> being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene.
Anthony> Oddly enough, idiocy within Debian doesn't leave
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart
> from being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene.
Oddly enough, idiocy within Debian doesn't leave me particularly amused
any more, whether it's faked or
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
> I see. So your implication is that merely by transposing the
> words joint and draft the message gains legitimacy? And _you_ have
> the gall to call _me_ an idiot? Jesus.
>
> Antho
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> This is a joint draft message from the release manager and
>> Manoj Srivastava
Anthony> The phrase Ian used was "DRAFT joint message", implying that
Anthony> it was a "dra
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:34:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is a joint draft message from the release manager and
> Manoj Srivastava
The phrase Ian used was "DRAFT joint message", implying that it was a
"draft of a (joint message)" open for review. Your phrase is the op
Hi,
This is a joint draft message from the release manager and
Manoj Srivastava
Of course it is not, really. I would hope that all right
minded people would agree and sign on to the holy task of eradicating
all non emacs editors from the face of the planet.
But,
17 matches
Mail list logo
