delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/01/10/10:25:55

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Andrew DeFaria <Andrew AT DeFaria DOT com>
Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:25:31 -0800
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <cru6pa$9bv$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <crt9le$q0e$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <E1CnubM-0007BW-00 AT deer DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-64-142-12-79.sonic.net
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
In-Reply-To: <E1CnubM-0007BW-00@deer.gmane.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

> Oh for the love of me, DeFaria:

Actually I don't love you at all.

> [snip]

You snipped the good stuff. So are you a lawyer or a potty mouthed 
junior high-school sys admin? We are dying to know!

>>>> Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a 
>>>> faulty personal one.
>>>
>>> I am expressing no legal opinion. I am merely stating the obvious: 
>>> if there's no potty-mouth there to offend, nobody can be offended by 
>>> the potty-mouth. Do you disagree with this axiom?
>>
>> We have not established that either. Again it is your assertion.
>
> Ok, I'll chalk this one up to you not having completed any mathematics 
> classes requiring you to do proofs yet (I think they start once you 
> get to high school, so consider this a learning experience):

I've completed more math classes than you'll ever know.

> An axiom is a basic statement of fact assumed to be true because of 
> its obviousness. It is obviously true that if A does not exist, nobody 
> could be offended by A. For any and all definitions of A.
>
> Now, Mr. DeFaria, do you or do you not agree with that axiom?

What they hell are you talking about?!? You need to take some basic 
logic courses! You say that this stuff is "potty-mouthed" (whatever 
that's supposed to mean you have not defined). That sir is just your 
OPINION! It is not fact nor is it obvious nor is it "A". And above you 
say that your OPINION is obvious therefore you are right. You are not 
right sir, it is just your opinion and you know what they say opinions 
are like assholes, everybody's got 'em, and yours is particularly 
stinky. It is not obvious sir as many people here disagree with many of 
the opinions that you are attempting to hold out as axioms. You sir say 
they are potty mouthed (an obvious scientific term) while I could say 
they are simply adult humor. Your characterization is no more true than 
mind.
-- 
Anytime four New Yorkers get into a cab together without arguing, a bank 
robbery has just taken place.


--
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/

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019