Re: A new arch support proposal, hopefully consensual (?)
Believe what you like about what I said. I could not care less.
What was apparently blatantly obvious to you about the nature of the
post was not to me, and I wanted to step forward to be sure that Sven's
points (which are near to my heart as a SPARC user) were not discarded
over a triviality.
Is it not ironic that I, a "nameless top-poster" (as you said), was a
lot more polite about expressing my opinion than you were about
expressing yours? After all, I voiced my objections specifically
instead of categorizing the parent post as "stupid".
Well, I think the dead horse has been beaten, so let's make amends and
move on to another more pressing issue.
--- Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:26:13AM -0800,
> foo_bar_baz_boo-deb@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is stupid. The very phrasing was lightly humerous, not an
> attack.
</SNIP>
Reply to: