Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #24201 > unrolled thread

color coding of text

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  color coding of text don <thedon@here.com> - 2013-05-31 10:38 -0400
    Re: color coding of text Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-05-31 17:00 +0200
    Re: color coding of text "dstibbe@gmail.com" <dstibbe@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 08:13 -0700
    Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-05-31 16:56 +0100
      Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-01 18:10 -0400
    Re: color coding of text Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-05-31 09:42 -0700
    Re: color coding of text FredK <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 11:25 -0700
      Re: color coding of text Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-05-31 22:19 -0300
    Re: color coding of text Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 11:48 -0700
      Re: color coding of text don <thedon@here.com> - 2013-05-31 16:34 -0400
        Re: color coding of text Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 13:43 -0700
          Re: color coding of text don <thedon@here.com> - 2013-05-31 19:17 -0400
            Re: color coding of text Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-06-01 12:01 +0200
              Re: color coding of text Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-06-01 09:15 -0300
                Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-01 18:25 -0400
            Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-01 18:19 -0400
            Re: color coding of text Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> - 2013-06-03 22:36 +1000
          Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-01 09:06 +0100
            Re: color coding of text Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-06-01 12:02 +0200
              Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-01 12:28 +0100
                Re: color coding of text Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-06-01 13:00 +0000
                Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-01 18:33 -0400
                  Re: color coding of text Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-06-01 17:26 -0700
                    Re: color coding of text Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-06-01 22:40 -0300
                      Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-01 21:52 -0400
            Re: color coding of text Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-06-01 13:30 +0200
              Re: color coding of text Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-06-01 09:30 -0300
                Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-01 18:37 -0400
                  Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-02 08:51 +0100
                    Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-02 09:47 -0400
                      Re: color coding of text markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-06-02 07:53 -0700
                Re: color coding of text Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-06-02 17:46 +0200
                  Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-02 12:04 -0400
              Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-01 13:40 +0100
                Re: color coding of text Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-06-01 20:54 +0200
                  Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-01 20:04 +0100
                    Re: color coding of text Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-06-01 21:31 +0200
                    Re: color coding of text Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-06-02 19:51 +0200
                      Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-02 14:11 -0400
                      Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-02 19:30 +0100
                Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-01 18:41 -0400
                  Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-02 09:02 +0100
                    Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-02 09:41 -0400
                    Re: color coding of text Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-06-02 17:47 +0200
                      Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-02 18:11 +0100
                        Re: color coding of text Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-06-02 14:09 -0400
                        Re: color coding of text Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-06-02 11:45 -0700
                          Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-02 20:07 +0100
                            Re: color coding of text Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-06-02 12:36 -0700
                              Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-02 21:24 +0100
        Re: color coding of text Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-06-01 19:31 -0700
          Re: color coding of text lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-06-02 08:57 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#24230

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:28:55 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:

> On 01/06/13 11:02, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like a total arsehole?
>>
>> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only
>> turned rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful
>> original poster for posting his link
> 
> There are many reasons people post to Usenet Joerg, maybe they would
> like to start a conversation with like minded people but don't know how
> to start, maybe they are trying to make some friends, maybe they are not
> experienced with search engines and don't know how to sift the wheat
> from the chaff. Maybe they are just starting out on Usenet and don't
> understand the protocols yet.
> 
> A first response of RTFM is not really helpful is it.
> 
> If I just wanted to Read The Fucking Manual I wouldn't be here.
>
You and the OP may translate RTFM as you've opined. 

Oddly enough, I translate it is Read The Fine Manual. I agree that I 
wouldn't say RTFM to somebody's face, but then I don't use initial slang 
face to face either, but may well say "Read the manual", possibly with 
its name added, or "Read the manpage".

Last but not least, RTFM is widely understood to be an invitation to read 
the official documentation, or at least the relevant O'Reilly book, but 
RTM seems to be more generally understood to mean Remember The Milk (make 
a reminder list) or Release To Manufacturing. Run the two searches 
yourself and you'll see what I mean.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24240

On 6/1/2013 7:28 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 01/06/13 11:02, Joerg Meier wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:06:47 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>
>> In his defense, his original advice was in a neutral tone, he only turned
>> rude when he was yelled at instead of thanked by the ungrateful original
>> poster for posting his link
>
> There are many reasons people post to Usenet Joerg, maybe they would
> like to start a conversation with like minded people but don't know how
> to start, maybe they are trying to make some friends, maybe they are not
> experienced with search engines and don't know how to sift the wheat
> from the chaff. Maybe they are just starting out on Usenet and don't
> understand the protocols yet.
>
> A first response of RTFM is not really helpful is it.

And the relevance is?

I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
exact position in the FM discussing the topic.

It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24244

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
> exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
> 
> It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.

Furthermore, I found that link by following the more general 
search link that I also provided. 

Which general search link, and the rest of the FM aforementioned, 
do, indeed, answer the "real" question that "don" so politely  
wants answered. No matter what the "real" question is.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24245

On 06/01/2013 09:26 PM, Lew wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
>> exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
>>
>> It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.
>
> Furthermore, I found that link by following the more general
> search link that I also provided.
>
> Which general search link, and the rest of the FM aforementioned,
> do, indeed, answer the "real" question that "don" so politely
> wants answered. No matter what the "real" question is.
>
All true, no question. But it would probably help just to provide the 
info, and dispense with RTFM. The latter is an abrasive extra dig, and 
putting it out there as an acronym is evading the fact that it means 
Read The Fucking Manual.

I've never used the term professionally, because it's unprofessional. 
It's hackerish and unpleasant.

AHS
-- 
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24247

On 6/1/2013 9:40 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 09:26 PM, Lew wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I mean Lew actually did post a link to the FM and the
>>> exact position in the FM discussing the topic.
>>>
>>> It is almost impossible to be more helpful I would say.
>>
>> Furthermore, I found that link by following the more general
>> search link that I also provided.
>>
>> Which general search link, and the rest of the FM aforementioned,
>> do, indeed, answer the "real" question that "don" so politely
>> wants answered. No matter what the "real" question is.
>>
> All true, no question. But it would probably help just to provide the
> info, and dispense with RTFM. The latter is an abrasive extra dig, and
> putting it out there as an acronym is evading the fact that it means
> Read The Fucking Manual.
>
> I've never used the term professionally, because it's unprofessional.

I doubt that Lew does use it professionally.

But is it relevant? Usenet is a different context from work. The
time to respond is different, the code produced is different - so
would it be surprising that language used is different?

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24225

On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:

>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>
> Why can't you just give advice?
> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
> a total arsehole?
>
> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
> why bother to respond?

<disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer> 
  You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did* 
bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume 
that he wants to help.  And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's 
postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)

> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
> get over yourself, you really are not that important.

You make it important - with your posting.  You may not agree with his 
style - very well.  But what makes you believe this posting of yours is 
helping to improve things?

Cheers

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24228

On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>
>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>
>> Why can't you just give advice?
>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>> a total arsehole?
>>
>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>> why bother to respond?
>
> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>   You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
> that he wants to help.  And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
>
>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
>
> You make it important - with your posting.  You may not agree with his
> style - very well.  But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
> helping to improve things?
>
> Cheers
>
>      robert
>
Here's the thing, Robert. If we knew that every poster to this NG was a 
professional programmer, then even though RTFM is unprofessional, you 
could probably tenuously justify saying it. After all, career 
programmers should be doing some research before asking questions.

But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few 
are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to 
improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own, 
for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework. 
Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.

AHS
-- 
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
-- Jonathan Swift

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24241

On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>
>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>
>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>> a total arsehole?
>>>
>>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>>> why bother to respond?
>>
>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>>   You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help.  And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
>> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
>>
>>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
>>
>> You make it important - with your posting.  You may not agree with his
>> style - very well.  But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
>> helping to improve things?
> Here's the thing, Robert. If we knew that every poster to this NG was a
> professional programmer, then even though RTFM is unprofessional, you
> could probably tenuously justify saying it. After all, career
> programmers should be doing some research before asking questions.
>
> But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few
> are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to
> improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own,
> for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework.
> Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.

Absolutely.

But then Lew did not only post RTFM in his first post.

He also posted a link to the exact page in the manual
with the answer.

That should be pretty useful for the non-pro reader
segment.

(the fact that the page had the answer to the question
in th emessage body and not what OP wanted which was
in the subject muddies the water a bit, but still)

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24252

On 01/06/13 23:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>> a total arsehole?

[snip]

> But then Lew did not only post RTFM in his first post.
>
> He also posted a link to the exact page in the manual
> with the answer.

Irrelevant, the link would have sufficed, no need for RTFM
You are trying to defend the indefensible ... as usual.

Once again Bloch-local has trolled c.l.j.p

Given how many people have stated that they find his behavior 
unacceptable there are two possible reasons for it.

1. He is deliberately being objectionable.
2. He is too thick to realize his mistake.

Well Bloch, which is it?

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24258

On 6/2/2013 3:51 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 01/06/13 23:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/1/2013 8:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2013 08:30 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>>>>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't you just give advice?
>>>>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>>>>> a total arsehole?
>
> [snip]
>
>> But then Lew did not only post RTFM in his first post.
>>
>> He also posted a link to the exact page in the manual
>> with the answer.
>
> Irrelevant, the link would have sufficed, no need for RTFM

Lew thougth it would be relevant to refer to the concept
of the Fine Manual.

You are welcome to disagree, but his decision what goes
in his reply.

> Given how many people have stated that they find his behavior
> unacceptable there are two possible reasons for it.
>
> 1. He is deliberately being objectionable.
> 2. He is too thick to realize his mistake.

There is a pretty long history of using RFTM on usenet.

It is not something unique for Lew.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24260

On 6/2/2013 6:47 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> There is a pretty long history of using RFTM on usenet.
>
> It is not something unique for Lew.

For example, it's codified in Eric Raymond's FAQ How to Ask Questions 
the Smart Way.

<http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>

"RTFM and STFW: How To Tell You've Seriously Screwed Up

"There is an ancient and hallowed tradition: if you get a reply that 
reads “RTFM”, the person who sent it thinks you should have Read The 
Fucking Manual. He or she is almost certainly right. Go read it.

"RTFM has a younger relative. If you get a reply that reads “STFW”, the 
person who sent it thinks you should have Searched The Fucking Web. He 
or she is almost certainly right. Go search it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24261

On 01.06.2013 14:30, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> But we don't know that every poster here is a pro. I'll bet quite a few
> are not. You might have a guy who works a shitty job who is looking to
> improve his marketability by learning a programming language on his own,
> for example. Or a parent trying to keep up with her kid's homework.
> Under these circumstances using the term RTFM is unhelpful.

The fact that someone is new to (Java) programming is unrelated to his 
ability to deal with unhelpful replies or even inappropriate language. 
You make it sound (to me at least) a bit like every programming newbie 
is also a newbie when it comes to social interaction.  I prefer to 
assume persons I interact with to being adult until proven otherwise.

Btw, I'm all for politeness and respect but I think that trying to 
police a public forum without access control is bound to fail - worst 
case it leads into the opposite direction of the one intended (as 
another branch of this discussion exemplifies).

Kind regards

	robert



-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24263

On 6/2/2013 11:46 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> Btw, I'm all for politeness and respect but I think that trying to
> police a public forum without access control is bound to fail - worst
> case it leads into the opposite direction of the one intended (as
> another branch of this discussion exemplifies).

Besides the limited chances of success there is also the question
of where to draw the line.

Object to a term that has been widely used for decades, because
a letter in it *may* represent the word "Fucking" seems to be a
very strict policy. Somewhat out of touch with reality on
the internet in 2013.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24229

On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 31/05/13 21:43, Lew wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:34:38 PM UTC-7, don wrote:
>
>>> The advice is sound. Follow it. Get over yourself.
>>
>> Why can't you just give advice?
>> Why do you always feel it necessary to behave like
>> a total arsehole?
>>
>> Why do you even bother, if you don't think the question a valid one then
>> why bother to respond?
>
> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>   You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
> that he wants to help.

Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it 
large with the smart arse attitude. You can defend him all you want but 
bullies have never phased me, I always stand up to them and they always 
turn out to be cowards.

> And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)

I'm happy for you.

>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.
>
> You make it important - with your posting.  You may not agree with his
> style - very well.  But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
> helping to improve things?

Allowing thugs to practice their thuggery unopposed never contributes to 
an open and free debate.

If you don't get this then you are part of the problem I'm afraid.


lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24234

2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:

>> <disclaimer>I'm not Lew so I don't have access to his mind.</disclaimer>
>>   You could look at this from a different perspective: since he *did*
>> bother to answer you could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> that he wants to help.
> 
> Plenty of others, including myself managed to reply without giving it
> large with the smart arse attitude. You can defend him all you want but
> bullies have never phased me, I always stand up to them and they always
> turn out to be cowards.

ITYM fazed. And I think you are an over-sensitive jerk, too prone to
label others as bullies and cowards. Get over yourself.

>> And in fact, I find most of the time Lew's
>> postings are helpful - maybe not in an obvious way though. :-)
> 
> I'm happy for you.

How gracious of you!

>>> Your bizarre behavior lowers the tone of the group
>>> get over yourself, you really are not that important.

In your opinion.

>> You make it important - with your posting.  You may not agree with his
>> style - very well.  But what makes you believe this posting of yours is
>> helping to improve things?
> 
> Allowing thugs to practice their thuggery unopposed never contributes to
> an open and free debate.
> 

You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
don't like them.

-- 
Lars Enderin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24235

On 01/06/13 19:54, Lars Enderin wrote:
> 2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:

[snip]

> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
> don't like them.

Piss off Lars you idiot.

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24236

2013-06-01 21:04, lipska the kat skrev:
> On 01/06/13 19:54, Lars Enderin wrote:
>> 2013-06-01 14:40, lipska the kat skrev:
>>> On 01/06/13 12:30, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2013 10:06, lipska the kat wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>> don't like them.
> 
> Piss off Lars you idiot.

You need to work on your attitude.

-- 
Lars Enderin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24265

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:

> [snip]
>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>> don't like them.
> Piss off Lars you idiot.

Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.

Liebe Gruesse,
		Joerg

-- 
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24267

On 6/2/2013 1:51 PM, Joerg Meier wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>>> don't like them.
>> Piss off Lars you idiot.
>
> Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
> than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
> down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
> really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
> this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.

The funny thing is that Lew can occasionally be extremely harsh, but
in this thread he only used a few RTFM.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24268

On 02/06/13 18:51, Joerg Meier wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:04:50 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>> You are not helping either by labelling people as thugs just because you
>>> don't like them.
>> Piss off Lars you idiot.
>
> Good job proving Lars right. Frankly, I find Lew considerably less grating
> than you "holier than thou" knights who use him as an excuse to put others
> down. Nobody likes Netcops. The nonstop arguments you guys start over Lew's
> really comparatively mild attitude problems are a lot more disruptive to
> this groups health than simply ignoring him would be.

Yet here you are perpetuating what you profess to find irksome.

There is *never* a reason for uncalled for and unnecessary rudeness.

That's all I'm saying.

lipska


-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web