Stroller <stroller <at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes: > On 29 Mar 2008, at 20:39, Michael Schmarck wrote: > > Stroller <stroller <at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes: > > > >> I, too, thought about saying something like this at the time. I'm > >> glad you have done so and I agree with all your points. > > > > I don't. I disagree with his most important point... > > Yes, but you're demonstrating yourself to be a clueless idiot.
And why's that? As shown, the problems were due to the way the rhythmbox (or totem) package was built. I'm now an idiot because I've been biten by such a bug? And in how far am I clueless? Just because you see things differently then I do? > >> Alan's reply was harmless. You're not entitled to pick on him unless > >> you posted correctly in the first place. > > > > So, I *am* entitled. Thanks! > > No, you're not. But you said, that I am. Could you please stop changing your mind? > >> You're asking for help - provide as much information as possible and > >> please don't antagonise people (especially because they may be able > >> to help you!). > > > > Now, please go back and read Alans first post in the thread. It > > absolutely did not sound, as if he even wanted to help. > > That doesn't matter. Please don't antagonise people, full-stop. Yes, it absouletly does matter. It makes all of a difference. > >> I, too, know what it's like to receive a reply to one of my questions > >> which I find to be unhelpful and aggravating. However, "two wrongs > >> don't make a right" and no-one benefits from an angry response. > > > > Oh, so it's now my fault for responding to a flamebait? Nice. It's > > not the aggressor who's doing something wrong? > > It was NOT flamebait. It was. Even if it maybe was not the intention. And you can see that it was, if you have a look at the subthread. > It was HARMLESS. Yes. In your world, an aggressor is doing nothing wrong? Do I understand that right? Well, that's something were we seem to disagree. > Grown up! Get real. Michael -- [email protected] mailing list
