On Monday, 10 September 2007, at 16:59:55 (-0400), Youness Alaoui wrote: > maybe you should look up 'rude' in the dictionary.. try the > synonyms, there must be something with stronger value than 'rude'.
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html > And who said I'm here to tell anyone what to do with their own > projects, Allow me to quote: So I thought that maybe ETK should provide a simple to use API, wrapping EWL, where EWL would be as customizable as possible. And again: so if ETK uses EWL in the background, provides the API it wants, and customizes the EWL widgets to look the way ETK developers want it to look, then the choice would be easier a high level toolkit, or use EWL if you want a set of widgets that you want to use and customize the way you want them to be. And again: ETK being a simple wrapper to EWL would avoid code duplication, would centralize the efforts, and would help the users choose their API more easily. ... That would be awesome... > all the above is just LOL, I can't beleive you wrote that while > being seriously.. I wonder how silly one can be... I see. So you're offended, and now you're lashing out instead of actually paying attention. > ok, you might be right on this little thing, although you're far > from being completely right. Scalability is helpful only if the > performance is perfectly linear. if not, then it's useless. That is not a mathematically valid statement. Whether it's linear (O(n)), exponential (O(n^2)), or something in between doesn't really change the fact that scalability indicates efficiency. > > What does that mean? No one has said anything about "responding > > to demands" until now. That doesn't even make any sense in the > > context of this conversation. > > well you should maybe read my mails before asking because clearly > that's what I've been talking about since the first email. I don't think you're using the right word. What "demands," and who's making them? And in what way is EWL less responsive, or Etk more responsive, to those "demands?" > You're pathetic... And you still haven't said anything to indicate that you understand the concepts I mentioned, let alone refute any of them. See previous URL. > Good, it proves that I'm right, because so far, I don't think you > ever said something useful and true... http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html > oh sorry for not looking up the word correctly in the dictionary. > You're blunt, not agreessive? what's the "big difference". blunt adj 3: characterized by directness in manner or speech; without subtlety or evasion; {frank}, {free-spoken}, {outspoken}, {plainspoken}, {point-blank}, {straight-from-the-shoulder}] 4: devoid of any qualifications or disguise or adornment; aggressive adj 4: characteristic of an enemy or one eager to fight; > In any case, blunt or agressive, or rude or whatever you want to > call it, you should just learn how to shut up, because obviously, > you'll never learn how to talk (or write). I see. > Yeah, forgot you're perfect and would never do such a thing. Reread > my post, it was out of context. Claiming something does not make it so. Feel free to point out precisely what I quoted out of context, along with the context which was missing, and I'll be happy to address it. Absent that, I see nothing quoted out of context nor any reasonable possibility for doing so. > where? which point of view? I didn't get your point of view, I only > got "use EWL, it's better, period". I said nothing of the sort. If that's all you got from everything I've written, there would appear to be a language barrier of some kind. > Just to let you know mister who understand always everything, that > in this case, the "users" I was referring to are myself and my team, > users, in the sense of "users of the library", not the end user > clicking the buttons... a user for an application developer is the > Joe Guy using his application, the users of a library are the > application developers using the library. I would point out that end users clicking the buttons are *using* the library. So that's how I interpreted your statement. Thanks for clarifying. > I don't need to comment on your other stupid comments, that would > just be a waste of time. I'm sure it would. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Men are not subtle. We are obvious. Women know what men want. Men know what men want. What do we want? We want women! That's it. It's the only thing we know for sure." -- Jerry Seinfeld ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
