tomás, on 2019-08-09:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 12:24:41PM +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote:
[...]
> > My message was actually addressed to anyone
> > on the list, especially some writers with stronger language than
> > usual, but I can't recall you being part of this set. Yes, I
> > have found an issue; yes, it appears in your post; no, it is not
> > your authoring. Perhaps I unwillingly targeted you by quoting a
> > part of your message, but this was not intentional. Should it
> > reoccur, the message would just contain the paragraph leading to
> > the link, no quote. Are you fine with that, or do I completely
> > miss the point?
>
> Somewhat, but in a different way :-)
Once, a wise woman told that textual messages carry around
thirty percent of the meaning intended in the first place. It
looks like this holds quite true in this exchange then. :)
> See, as far as I am concerned, your post was fine, so when you
> feel like that, just do it again. And if you catch me behaving
> as I shouldn't, by all means, call me out on that.
Sure will do, although I will probably stick to private messages
first, if that ends up being necessary.
> > Now thinking twice, the so called wise man which authored the
> > very first profanity may not be subscribed to the list though...
> > :)
>
> I tend to be a bit more lenient than you: this kind of profanities
> don't seem to me too hard: although I'd prefer them to be rare
> (for the benefit of those who might feel pain at reading them),
> I think that some level of tolerance is necessary in such a
> big mailing list. The OP didn't insult anyone personally, and
> (s)he is known to have a rather curt and strong language. OTOH,
> (s)he has many helpful and to-the-point posts here.
You are plain right (unless some people are currently reading
this list with radio packets in countries where documented
limitations in the language do apply, I suppose). I also must
acknowledge the quality of the participation of the writer you
mention, for I have been subscribed myself long enough to
witness it.
Somehow the profanity this time turned back against its author
in an embarrassing way, and that reminded me about the code of
conduct on this topic. Rereading my initial post, I believe
that I sound exactly like an overreacting puritan. Crap, I
should've kept that formulation with the smiley, present in the
original draft...
> That's why I decided to take the edge off that thing in a
> humorous way by reminding us of the fact that agriculture's
> main business model is turning manure into tasty aubergines;
> so perhaps that wise man wasn't totally right after all...
Indeed, aubergines are tasty, and I was reading an interesting
article about reintroduction of horses and oxen in agriculture,
and how it could participate in reducing the energy cost of
having to produce manure artificially on one side, and reduce
the dependency on fuel for tractors on the other side.
Obviously, as such that would be at the expense of food
productivity; except perhaps if we consider the food thrown
afterwards instead of being eaten, but I digress:
https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/04/horses-agricult.html
(Note that solar.lowtechmagazine.com is hosted on an SBC, if it
can relate to the initial thread. It definitely does not run
Nextcloud though.)
> So don't worry. All is well. My question was really genuine,
> not a contorted way of defense or something.
No worries then, that is a relief! :D
Kind regards,
--
Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org>
5ab1 4edf 63bb ccff 8b54 2fa9 59da 56fe fff3 882d
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature