Re: Mysterious gdb behavior.

["Robert McNulty Junior" <bmj2001 at bellsouth dot net>]

Die, Thread. Die.


Every poster to this post needs to quit.
Paul, I have a feeling about you. Not hatred, but like we know each other.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net>
To: <derbyshire@globalserve.net>; <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Mysterious gdb behavior.


> Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> > On 3 Aug 2002 at 11:13, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >
> >> I simply stated that your assertion was false. At no point did I
> >> target you. My aim was simply to prevent the other people from
> >> learning incorrect information.
> >
> > Like hell it was. If that was your aim, it wasn't well served, since
> > the assertion *you* made was false.
>
> No, it was correct, as confirmed by other posters.
>
> > Besides, it's obvious from your
> > tone here that your intent is to smear me.
>
> My tone was terse, that is true, but it reflects lack of inclination to
type a
> long reply, not any evil intent.
>
> > Go find something more
> > constructive to do.
> >
> >>> The problem is that you are trying to tar me some kind of idiot!
> >>
> >> No. I'm not. As above.
> >
> > Deny it all you want. Besides, regardless of what you are *trying* to
> > do, what the hell do you think it looks like???
>
> I think it looks like I'm irritated about an incorrect statement phrased
as
> total truth, without an 'I think...' or 'Aren't ... ?'
>
> >>> No, the difference is that someone has taken a personal dislike to
> >>> me, for whatever reason. The reason is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> I just gave the only possible reason above!
> >
> > Which reason amounts to, I'm being treated differently because I'm an
> > idiot.
>
> Not really. I'd say because of a tendency to misinterpret impatience as
dislike,
> and respond in kind. Also, because a lack of willingness to experiment and
> research.
>
> > Well, I refuse to accept that. I have strong defenses against
> > being tricked into negative self-beliefs. Messages that are
> > insulting, or make insulting insinuations, are not trusted and nor
> > are their authors for some time after. If only M$ mail clients were
> > that secure.
> >
> > Take your insults and your toys and go back to your own back yard to
> > play.
> >
> >>> Then why didn't you just say so, instead of appearing to disagree
> >>> and insulting my intelligence with every posting?
> >>
> >> I was not discussing changing windows usernames as applied to this
> >> situation. I was simply arguing that, should you want to do it, it
> >> would be substantially less difficult than you suggested. I'm sorry
> >> if I gave you the wrong impression about this.
> >
> > Substantially less difficult as in three hours of pain and nitpicking
> > followed by one week of catching more omitted changes, instead of
> > five hours and three weeks?
>
> As in 1 minute to change your username, rename your _Cygwin_ home
directory, and
> change /etc/passwd, followed by a need to re-edit /etc/passwd if you
regenerate
> it with mkpasswd.
>
> >>> Bull. If I change my username to Zaphod Beeblebrox, to make things
> >>> consistent I'd have to rename my home directories (Windows and
> >>> cygwin both) to Zaphod Beeblebrox.
> >>
> >> Cygwin, maybe. Windows, no. Windows intends for you to access stuff
> >> in your home directory through things like My Documents.
> >
> > C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\My Documents, to be exact -- can
> > you imagine the chaos when the path to *that* changes?!
> >
> >> Yes. You are not required or supposed to change Windows home dirs.
> >
> > Nor, I'd expect, unix ones.
>
> Can if you like. No particular hangups.
>
> >> Indeed. The one and only place we told you to edit in the first
> >> place.
> >
> > Without deigning to tell me whether or not anything *else* needed
> > doing along with that. Besides the obvious.
>
> I would imagine it was a spur of the moment reply, not a carefully crafted
> educational document.
>
> > [Various snippage]
> >
> >>> But when I dismissed it as too much pain and hardship you lambasted
> >>> me.
> >>
> >> No. I attempted to correct some points on which you were
> >> misinformed. You took this very badly, for some reason unknown to me.
> >
> > Umm, would you like being bluntly contradicted ina public forum? The
> > result is to appear foolish.
>
> If I stated that X was true, when in fact X was unequivocally false, I
would not
> be annoyed at someone who corrected me.
>
> My standing in the eyes of anyone who already knew the correct information
> regarding X would be unchanged, and anyone who did not, deserves not be
misled.
> And I would deserve to know the truth, for future use.
>
> > Especially with what's going on
> > elsewhere in the thread especially with Greg and Kim that is the LAST
> > thing I want or need.
> >
> > Especially under the circumstances, that is a lambasting. The implied
> > judgment is pretty clear and unwelcome. And undeserved.
>
> I did not go out of my way to polite - true. But it was not intended as
such,
> only as a correction, in the minimum number of keystrokes possible.
>
> Max.
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/