Re: A new arch support proposal, hopefully consensual (?)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:56:31PM -0800, email@example.com wrote:
> 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".
Not really. I considered accusing someone of "perpetrating a straw man
attack" who used the phrase "you ignoramus, you" silly enough that most
people wouldn't need it explained. *shrug*
You're a nameless top-poster; this is objective, not a flame. Your From:
header has no name. If you scan other posts, you'll find it difficult to
find anyone else who isn't posting with something at least resembling a
real name. (It's hard to take an anonymous entity named "foo bar baz boo
deb" seriously.) You quote upside-down; I'm sure you know what that means
already and how bad form it is on most technical lists. Oh, and you break
threads every time you reply, which is also extraordinarily bad practice:
your In-Reply-To header is bogus and there's no References: header, which
makes threads much harder to follow, and will probably get you ignored by
many people since your posts won't appear in the normal flow of the thread.
(I actually do point them out in the hope that you'll fix them. If you
don't care enough about the quality of your posts to do so, it's not my