Re: What's best quick fix for broken kde metapackage?
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 03:01 am, tluxt2@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi ben,
>
> I read your message with some interest. In order to help me give you a
> response on par with your interest, will you please provide me some
> clarification about some things that are ambiguous to me about your
> message? TIA.
>
> 1st: One ambiguity in your message is whether your message is (please
> excuse my loose use of definitions here) intended rhetorically (Ie, you
> just wanted to communicate your thoughts to me, and you didn't actually
> want any answers to some or all of the questions you posed), or if you
> actually wanted answers to all the questions. Which is the case?
>
> If you do indeed want these answers, then I have this 2nd question:
> 2nd: As you know, speaker attitude/tone/emotion can carry a large part of
> a message, but none of those things come unambiguously through a text
> channel without being explicitly stated. Now, I could guess at the a/t/e
> in different parts of your message. But, my guess could be wrong. So, if
> you're interested in an accurate response, will you please tell me the
> a/t/e for each of the sections below? (You'll see I have divided your
> message into related sections.)
>
> Just put the words of the a/t/e for each section in the handy little square
> brackets I've provided. :) (Or perhaps the a/t/e is the same for the
> entire message, in which case you only need to put this info in once, at
> the beginning.)
>
> As an example of what I mean, my a/t/e for the above comments to you is:
> [serious, curious, considerate, helpful].
>
> There are a long list of possible a/t/e descriptions. Ex:
> happy, sad, angry, honest, amused, disappointed, tired, sarcastic,
> incredulous, scorn, ...
>
> Be as accurate & detailed as you wish.
>
> Thanks. :)
>
> PS: I am very busy currently, but I will make an effort to respond to you
> within a week of your reply, at most, and perhaps within a few days.
>
solely out of a consideration that you seem to be unable to exert for the
benefit of others, i accept that you are, for whatever reason, but,
nonetheless, by your own admission, possibly unable to respond to this
promptly.
as for your inability to properly interpret my intentions, i can only say
that the ambiguity you suggest was a part of my post to you is a further
product of your arrogance. you are rude. you are obnoxious. you assume a
position of special entitlement without the slightest attempt to accord
respect to those to whom respect is due. on the basis of constructing a
howto, you assume the right to exact obligations of notice from those whose
proven efforts far exceed anything you offer. you render accusations of
delinquency that are entirely unwarranted and unjustified.
is this clear enough? is there a trace of ambiguity here?
you owe chris cheney an apology. you owe the list an apology for your
attempted disparagement of the effort he invests in what he does. your
attempt to assert obligation where none exist is antithetical to the whole
premise of what debian is about.
as to whether or not i wanted a response to the original questions, the
answer is yes, i do want a considered response to those questions--which, i
notice, you haven't taken the effort to quote.
ben
Reply to: