On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:32:38PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:23:59PM +0200, Walter A. Iglesias wrote:
> > don't answer, don't you have time to maintain FVWM?,
> > don't do it, nobody will blame you.
>
> Afraid to disagree with you, but actually I've spent more time
> writing and improving fvwm than you can imagine. Fvwm is by far
> more my baby than of the original author, Rob Nation, or anybody
> else; chances are that half of the code you use every day when you
> use fvwm has been written by me. So, please do not tell me
> whether I am able to maintain fvwm or not.
Stop putting in my mouth things. And sorry but I will try you equal to
equal even if you're Ken Thomson. I'm using right now JWM, --in several
ways better than your "baby"--, and the nice guy that has developed it
from scratch had no problem in responding my personal messages, he even
gave me the thanks!
> (My apologies for this "showing off" to Mikhael, Olivier, Dan,
> Thomas and all the other people who have contributed to fvwm over
> the years - there's no intention to belittle your work.)
>
> > And remember, two bugs were fixed thanks to your work but principally
> > thanks to *I* reported them
>
> I do remember that and would prefer to keep any further
> discussions on a purely technical level:
Tell it to yourself; you forced me to talk about not technical issues
here just because your vanity.
>
> > Was INSTALL.fvwm bad explained too?
>
> I have still not understood what you think should be changed on
> top of the changes that are already in CVS.
Read the whole thread please.
>
> > PD. You complained about other user here Cc you. Well you've Cc me a
> > lot of times and I didn't complain. Stop considering yourself a
> > "victim".
>
> Actually, the fvwm mailing lists have certain unwritten rules that
> people who have been around here for a while know. One of these
> rules is to use electronic mail properly. This involves:
>
> * Honouring other people's mail headers (reply-to etc.),
> * not top posting replies,
> * stripping quoted portions of unnecessary context.
What I do.
> Personally, I try to be polite, patient with writers who I find
> hard to understand, and to stay on topic.
Oh yeah, after publicly admitting you read the first line of each
paragraph. Of course being the FVWM MAINTAINER you have the right to
blame the user *bad* explanation.
> While I do not really care if people I hardly know get personal with
> me or other here whom I know well and with whom I have worked a lot in
> the past, discussions that focus on pointing fingers eventually do not
> help to improve fvwm and absorb time that could be spent elsewhere.
>
> There has only been very little moderation necessary on the fvwm
> lists, and the fvwm maintainers would like to keep it that way.
Now you're threaten me again. Just because you're not brave enough to
assume your mistakes.
> This requires that new posters to the list stick to these rules,
> which are meant for keeping the necessary effort to maintain fvwm
> as low as possible. I hope you understand this (more or less)
> subtle hint about the possible consequences of future postings,
> and kindly ask you again to limit future postings to technical
> discussions or questions and refrain from getting personal.
Or you will punish me. Uh, I'm scared!
You showed up from the very start. The problem you have with me is
irrational and obeys simply to I don't accept that you are a "FVWM
MAINTAINER", and I am a "fvwm user", hence I will always "wrong" and you
always "RIGHT". I mentioned Thomas Adams authority in my personal mail
and didn't considered your authority, that hurts! Well I don't know who
your are, may I feel guilty for that? You know what? I DON'T CARE WHO
YOU ARE. You're so concerned about I didn't recognized like the
Hollywood Star you think you are and asked you for a sign, aren't you?
Well this is my last attempt to be reasonable with you. The rest of
people here will understand:
When I find an issue, being me a newcomer I take in care it could exist
reasons I ignore, and what I think is a bug or an error could be not.
That's why I didn't send you directly a patch without "asking" first and
tried to put a big effort with my limited English in explaining my point
of view.
For the same reason, because I am new here, it sound to me a bit rude to
send you directly a patch like you advice me. It sounds to me like
throwing you the work on the table without saying hello, like if I was
your boss.
Finally, that reasons I could ignore could not be technical, will you
"absolutely" negate that possibility? Exists forks in FOSS world just
because personal-political reasons. That's why I bothered you with a
personal message to avoid pointless discussions like this to happen
here. That was before knowing you're the kind of person that tend to
originate this pointless issues. My mistake.
See? I was *respecting* you. That confuses you because you're not used
to that.
That are my honest reasons. If you still don't understand my point of
view is because you don't want to.
But don't worry about having to "moderate" me, now that I know one of
the principal FVWM maintainers is a lazy reader I don't trust in this
software anymore. I will remove myself from this lists right now, I am
really tired of people like you.
The right place to send all this is your mail box, but you've forbidden
me to mail you so I will not sorry to the rest of users and maintainers
here because I didn't originate this stupid discussion.
Walter
