This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")


> At 08:47 PM 7/11/2004, you wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
> >> >That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. 
> He brought 
> >> >this topic onto himself.
> >> 
> >> This statement is disingenuous.  For shame.
> >> 
> >
> >Perhaps, perhaps not.  I'm still waiting for somebody, other 
> than you 
> >Chris[1], to tell me who asked you to do anything about anything 
> >discussed here (prior to the replied-to post; I see there 
> was a "deal" 
> >subsequently proposed that did in fact ask for some 
> tit-for-tat action).
> >
> >[1] This exception is of course an attempt to help prevent 
> this message 
> >from being misinterpreted as a demand for you to do anything.  It is 
> >not, and is not to be misconstrued as such.  Nor, in fact, 
> is it to be 
> >construed as a demand for anybody else to do anything either.  One 
> >would hope this would be clear from the complete lack of demands or 
> >implications of demands contained herin, but when in Rome....
> >
> >Oh, and BTW, whatever anybody wants to convince themselves of, if 
> >you're pointing folks to Google to get info out of your 
> archives (which 
> >contain their own seach feature), your archives are broken.  
> >DISCLAIMER: That was the Royal "Your", not to be construed 
> as "Chris' archives" etc.
> >
> >Remember, denial is stage one.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're looking to get from someone 
> responding to your inquiry

Simply clarification on who did the deed.  If in fact a deed was done.

> but from my perspective, based on 
> what you've said, this just prolongs a thread that has 
> drifted beyond the scope of the original inquiry and no 
> longer serves a constructive purpose.  If you can succinctly 
> point to one, then perhaps it's still worthwhile to continue 
> this thread.

Last I checked we were talking about broken archives, for some definition of
"broken" anyway.  You'll note that my post mentions a shortcoming I've
noticed pertaining to that very subject.

At the same time you are of course right, there is no point in continuing
this thread.  It has served its purpose... if that purpose was to get a
maintainer to quit.

> Otherwise, let's just let it die and move on.  I think all 
> relevant points have been made already. 

Indeed.

"Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economise it." - Mark
Twain

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]