Date:	Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:52:15 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Tom St Denis <stdenis AT compmore DOT net>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: FreeBE compilation woes
In-Reply-To:	<92tjgv$lr9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010103105110.1129K-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Tom St Denis wrote:

> > Nobody here is obligated to help you - and respoding in such way
> > you will make people think twice before offering any further help for
> you.
> 
> Hey I do my part by releasing my stuff out in the open.

Thanks, but that hardly gives you the right to be abusive to others.

> Maybe when somebody asks for help you give insight and not
> conjecture.

``Conjecture''?  The specific section in the FAQ to which I pointed is
based on facts, and offers detailed explanation of the cause for the
problem, URLs for patches for a couple of popular packages where
people bump into these problems, and a pointer to a place describing a
procedure for fixing the invalid assembly code that triggers those
messages.  There is no guesswork in that section, only insight.

> I know what a FAQ is I was looking for someone who I dunno, perhaps,
> maybe WORKED WITH FREEBE!!!!!!!!.

The problem you encountered is not FreeBE-specific.

If you didn't want to hear from anyone except people who have built
FreeBE with the latest compiler, you should have said that in your
message.  Something like "Please don't bother to reply unless you have
a pointer to a version of FreeBE that someone already fixed."  That
would have saved me the waste of time I needed to look up the issue in
the FAQ (no, I do _not_ remember it by heart) and post a reply, and
the aggravation of getting bashed for offering you help.

- Raw text -