On 24 November 2006 13:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
[thread properly TITTTL'd for reasons of bock-bock-bock-baaaagaaaaaawk!]
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:43:45 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen
On Nov 23 22:07, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yes. It's called "cat".
Do you think to be fun? or that a sequence of HEX characters are
human-readable?
There's nothing funny here. The stackdump file is human-readable
and there's no more information. If you want more information
you need a debugger and executables built with debugging information.
It really is NOT funny: it's perfectly clear what Angelo was asking
for, even though English is evidently not his first language. Instead
of helping him, like the other 2 respondents did, Chris decided to
mock him in public -- a terribly unfriendly and unprofessional thing
to do, which doesn't add any respect to this forum.
Just because it isn't very funny doesn't mean it was mocking. Or even that
it was /meant/ to be mocking, since intent and consequences are not always one
and the same.
It's facetious to attempt to infer someone's state of mind and
motivation from a single line of text with only four words in it, many
would consider that far too small a sample to be statistically valid.
But, hey, I *am* pretty facetious, so I'm going to try![*]
My *guess* (because 'guess' is all that any of us have been doing so
far) is that cgf saw the post, saw that it had already been answered
with all the relevant information, and didn't see why not to post a
"ha-ha-only-serious" type of quickfire humorous comeback. Which fell
flat on its face, but it's a long reach from there to "mocking".