Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:40:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <106dovd$std$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <106dji3$3aqcv$1@dont-email.me> <106dmj0$6hj$1@reader1.panix.com> <106dok3$3b9ks$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:40:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="29613"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:16833

In article <106dok3$3b9ks$1@dont-email.me>,
Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>On 30/07/2025 20:00, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <106dji3$3aqcv$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2025 14:16, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <106a04v$2hiar$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Julio Di Egidio  <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/07/2025 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not terribly interested in marketing slogans, to be honest.
>>>>>> "Safety" in this case has a very well-defined meaning, which may
>>>>>> not be the same as yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you don't realise it, but you are *only* repeating
>>>>> the fake history and the fraudulent marketing slogans.
>>>>
>>>> Unsupported assertions coupled with a lack of engagement
>>>
>>> Or maybe you just can't read.
>> 
>> Wow.  You seem nice.
>
>"Nice"??  Have you looked outside your window lately?
>
>>>> and provide data.
>>>
>>> Sure, biased data for worse than wrong models that only
>>> confirm themselves...
>> 
>> Actually, I was suggesting that _you_ provide some data.
>
>As I did say since earlier, that very *paradigm* is a global
>fraud!  It's not my fault if you at best keep missing the point.

That's ridiculous.

>Indeed, do you think *you* are "nice"?  For your records, I have
>offended nobody, except maybe the incivilization and inculture
>that we/you collectively are.

You accused me of being unable to read.  That's rude, and
offensive.  If you don't understand that, it's really not my
problem.

>Sure, keep going...

No.

	- Dan C.