Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anyway, this is surely off topic for -devel. Can we go back to talking about
hot babes or something?
That would be very welcome.
--
ZAK B. ELEP [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Registered Linux User #327585
1024D/FA53851D 1486 7957 454D
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 00:06 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want sweetness and light, just tell them which document
to read.
If I want sweetness and light I don't pretend that I think somebody
needs to have explained what
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:09:18 +0100, Helmut Wollmersdorfer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
My few attempts to step into debian as a contributor ended after some
hours of senseless discussions or waste of time against unnecessary
barriers. Compared against average OSS, or OSS where I contribute,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:48:05AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:09:18 +0100, Helmut Wollmersdorfer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
My few attempts to step into debian as a contributor ended after some
hours of senseless discussions or waste of time against
Op di, 11-01-2005 te 06:31 +0900, schreef Charles Plessy:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote :
'RTFM' means Go read the documentation, that's what it's for.
It also contains the F word, which is related to the act of
having sex.
Sex is the very meaning of
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:14 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 06:39 -0500, schreef David Mandelberg:
[snip]
'RTFM' means Go read the documentation, that's what it's for. I
personally find it far more rude to go on a mailing list, ask for the
Do you *really* think that RTFM
Scripsit Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:37 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you *really* think that RTFM means Go read the documentation,
that's what it's for?
Yes, that's what it means.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote :
Why don't you guys go to psychology class before telling people not to
be 'rude'?
It's impossible not to be rude on written media. What's a harmless joke
to one is an insult to another, and an attack to one's personality to a
Charles Plessy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote :
Why don't guys go to psychology class before telling people not to
be 'rude'?
Then what about keeping jokes for our private messages to our
friends ? Your suggestion to go back to classes is, to my
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:08:36PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
* New upstream release (closes: #270944, #277543). It's less than two
weeks since this was released; may you contract an interesting
venereal disease.
Is this really called for in changelogs?
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:58:46AM +1100, Sam Watkins wrote:
We could even go a little further and try to avoid rudeness on the
mailing lists. I recently reviewed some of the conversations with RMS
on debian-legal regarding the GFDL. Several people were rude and
uncivil to RMS, even
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I found RMS to be extremely rude and dismissive in the GFDL
discussions. (His outright refusal to comminicate with Branden
Robinson comes to mind.)
Perhaps they were both rude, in different ways. Or perhaps it was a
sort of
12 matches
Mail list logo
