Re: /proc permissions and other things
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:12:07AM -0500, Mullins, Ron wrote:
> Andrej Hocevar wrote:
>
> >did you deliberately insult me with your self-boasting remarks or
> >was it just me reacting prickly? to me it seems that my question
>
> It would seem just a little of both. ;) Karsten is often brusque in
> requesting list etiquette be observed. I will share a better way to change
> /proc entries later.
>
(this time in accordance with your suggestions about quoting)
i'm glad to hear that karsten is not as bad as i wanted him to be.
:) my apologies for that. but the truth is i felt offended. however,
it's better now. i'm still not really changing my mind about
anything i said and so sticking to my way.
> >mails that make you react irritable? yes, i know it's my not using
> >the shift-key etc., but this is a list for our debian-linux-related
> >problems, isn't it. so why then do you feel the urge to act as if i
>
> You were asking for help, weren't you? He's asking that you make it easier
> on everyone who will read you mail and try to help you. It's only right that
> you do so.
>
> >please, don't make even more insulting generalizations about other
> >people's laziness. my second mail on this topic clearly shows that i
>
> He didn't state that you were lazy. He said he was.
i got it wrong. once again, sorry.
>
> >(about which i
> >read in the very same /usr/src/linux/documentation directory that
> >you've mentioned).
> > <snip>
> >if you ever intend to help me again, please consider this advice on
> >echoing.
>
> He told you he was going off of memory. Take that literally.
>
> >nb: my thoughts on quoting are unfortunately different from yours.
> >in general, when writing anything similar to (scientific) research
> >or any other papers vaguely connected with my domain of study --
> >that's comparative literature -- i strictly follow mla's rules. but
>
> I'm not familiar with mla's rules....
never mind -- that's just an example. mla means "modern language
association". i only wanted to express how sometimes quoting indeed
is crucial; following those rules simply means respecting other
people's work and not pretending to be the author of a theory
you're not. my point was that it's not that necessary here.
>
> Please notice that I have quoted beneath your text that I'm referring to.
> Can't you see how easy it is to follow? How clear it is what I'm replying
> to? Let's say that we discussed five things you had problems with and, for
> example, you wanted to let me know that I was wrong on the fourth one. You
> reply at the top of the message that I was wrong and the answer was 42. Now
> I'm completely uncertain as to which thing I'm wrong about and what should
> be 42. Posting below the text you are referring to also refreshes the
> person, not only on the situation, but what both of you have said.
of course, but you should know what questions you were asking and
keep a copy of the originals. if anything else is needed for the
sake of clarity, you can always find a way -- there cannot be rigid
rules to control that. there's only the writer's ability.
yet this is not the right place for the debate.
i hope i won't be excluded from this list and that i can rely on
your help in the future too.
thanks,
andrej
Reply to: