Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/20/08:47:18
On 20 April 2006 13:26, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> [Follow-ups set to cygwin@, since the arbitrary banning of maintainers, or
"Arbitrary" is not an accurate description of a ban that was done for a
clearly-defined reason. Gary, you could have TITTTL'd the thread but you just
*had* to have the last word. It's your own dumbass fault. Stop whining and
take your medicine like a man.
> Let me see if I have the order of events straight here:
Undoubtedly not.
> 1. You reply to one of my posts on cygwin-apps@ suggesting that the thread
> be moved to a more appropriate list
> [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00109.html]. You however
> neglect to change the followups accordingly [ibid., "Reply-to: cygwin-apps
> at cygwin dot com"].
>
> 2. I reply to your reply
> [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00112.html], but take care to
> in fact set the followups properly, so that the thread will indeed get moved
> to the more-appropriate list, i.e. cygwin-talk@ [ibid., "Reply-to:
> <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>"].
Like I say, you did that because you wanted to have the last word. There is
no need to post a reply just to set the followup headers which after all - and
this is the crucial point here - ONLY APPLY TO THAT ONE POST ANYWAY.
IOW, you added a superfluous post to the thread for the purported purpose of
setting the follow-up header of that very same - superfluous - post so that
any replies to the superfluous post will go to the right place. This has no
effect on any other post in the thread or any replies to any other post in the
thread. That's why the notion that you were somehow obliged to add just one
more post to the thread is specious nonsense and I fall back on the far more
likely theory that you wanted to self-aggrandize. QED.
> 3. You then reply to that reply - but not in the cygwin-talk@ list which I
> had redirected the thread to. Rather, you bring the thread /back/ into
> cygwin-apps@, only to inform me that you are /banning/ me from that mailing
> list [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00113.html] for doing the
> very thing YOU should have done in the previous message! Furthermore, you
> have also changed the followups of the thread /back/ to cygwin-apps@ [ibid.,
> "Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com"]!
However you count it, you were always one jump behind. Once a post has gone
out from a list maintainer saying "This thread is offtopic for this list",
there's no need to add another post to the thread. Full stop.
> Wow. I have to admit, I'm having an especially hard time getting my mind
> around #3 there.
Well, just try and grasp the fact that causality only ever operates
*forwards* in time, and it should be simpler to understand. Oh, and try and
also grasp that the "Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps" header is added by default
to *EVERY* post to the list, because list netiquette is that replies should go
to the list, not to individuals. Seeing the header in someone's post means
that they have *NOT* set any followup-to at all, not that they have
deliberately set it *to* the list.
Look up the word "default" in any good dictionary for more info.
> What sort of thought process sees me redirecting a thread
> to a more appropriate venue,
You weren't "redirecting a thread to a more appropriate venue". The main
part of that thread, about the proposed X repackaging, needed to remain on the
apps list where it was. The off-topic stuff needed to be TITTTL'd or just
dropped, pronto. You posted again because you wanted to have the last word.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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 -