RE: Who hasn't been badly flamed?

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 9:49 AM
> To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List
> Subject: Re: Who hasn't been badly flamed?
> 
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:10:05AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >The "next" time I indulged in a "flame"?  Perhaps it is my 
> turn to do 
> >some rereading, in particular your post of what you consider the 
> >definition of "flame" is.  I don't recall "flaming" anybody 
> here by any 
> >definition I'm aware of.  It's certainly not the reason I've 
> been here 
> >for an age and a half.
> 
> >>I thought you might have been poking a little bit of fun at yourself
> >
> >I'm far too serious for such shenanigans.
> >
> >;-)
> 
> Yes, once I got your drift I realized that there is no way 
> you would ever admit to having "flamed" anyone.  Hence my 
> real embarrassment for assuming that you would even 
> indirectly take responsibility for something like that.
> 
> cgf

Yeah, thought so, the real Chris is back.

Ok Chris, I'll ask you this yet again: Please point out an instance of where
I have "flamed" you, so that I may apologize, and we can both put the
terrible tragedy behind us.  Please again note that taking you to task for
poor behavior (or even what you would term "trolling") is not a "flame" by
anybody's definition.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
BTW: Was your post an example of "trolling" (your definition)?  I don't seem
to see any vituperative lanuguage per se.