On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:48:44 -0800 Peter Gordon <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 15:47 +1000, Res wrote: > > [...], because its much easier to lable someone a > > foul-mouth troll, than to think that hte foul-mouth troll might > > have a valid point. > > Having a valid point is no excuse for not presenting it in a > respectful manner. If you believe something needs to be fixed, please > let us know what it is. > > We love constructive criticism! Really, we do. It's one of the very > _foundations_ of F/OSS development. Please let us know what you feel > is wrong, and how perhaps we could fix it. However, if you simply > tell us "this is wrong. you people suck" (which is effectively what > your wording in earlier mails is doing), then we can do nothing about > it. > > Instead, choose your wording in a less inflammatory way. For example: > "This foo-thing is wrong. Here's why: insert-reason-here. Perhaps if > we did bar-action it could be fixed." > > > > Ah but this is a mailing list, I care not for typos :) > Heh. =P The fact remains, he can't help himself. Often he states things yet disqualifies himself with a contradiction. Is this by design or a self-destructive mode? Is there a clinical term for this; ... perhaps. All I know is, uneducated bantering and obscene verbiage is certainly a vehicle for those that can not muster an intellectual response much less a volley. -- Best regards, Chris Princess Leia: I love you. Han Solo: I know.
