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: Saturday, September 10, 2005 12:26 AM
> To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List
> Subject: Re: Who hasn't been badly flamed?
> 
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:06:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > From: Christopher Faylor
> >>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.
> >
> >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.
> 
> You know, on rereading, I suppose I was a little too 
> forthcoming about my assessment of your personality and I 
> should have just left well enough alone.
> 
> I certainly can't apologize for having opinions about you but 
> I do apologize for making them public.

No need to apologize because you "think highly of [my] technical ability"
and "[appreciate] [my] sense of humor" my good man!

>  I should have just 
> let you have the last word.
>

Yep.

> For the record, yes, I do think that you have flamed but I 
> don't require an apology.
> 

Again you misunderstand: it is *I* who have the requirement here.  If I have
"flamed" you as you claim I have, seems to me it's only fair that you give
me the opportunity to apologize for it, no?

On the other hand, if in fact I haven't "flamed" you and you're falsely
accusing me of doing so, well, then I'd have to refer you to your own post
concerning your definition of "trolling" (how ironic would that be!), and
politely ask you to stop malingering my good name.

> >BTW: Was your post an example of "trolling" (your 
> definition)?  I don't 
> >seem to see any vituperative lanuguage per se.
> 
> Argh.  Did I forget to use a smiley?

Memory's the second thing to go.

>  How could I have been 
> so careless?
> 
> ;-) ;-) ;-)
> 
> cgf

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle