Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:02:09 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: setup]]
Message-ID: <20010127110209.A31088@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <000e01c087d3$27c4c4f0$1101a8c0 AT BRAEMARINC DOT COM> <200101271541 DOT RAA13681 AT linux.>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <200101271541.RAA13681@linux.>; from ehud@unix.simonwiesel.co.il on Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 05:41:12PM +0200

On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 05:41:12PM +0200, Ehud Karni wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:04:12 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle <tiberius AT braemarinc DOT com> wrote:
>>>would you mind blocking Jim from this list unless he doesn't drop that
>>>annoying forwardings?
>>
>>What?!?! And have us miss his refreshing moral strength due to his 35
>>years of programming!??! I mean come on, it's not like we get to enjoy
>>some loser's outrageous bitching about something they got free every
>>day!
>>
>>Any way to block him from downloading it as well?
>
>I second (or 3rd, 4th or whatever) blocking his FORWARDINGS to the
>list.
>
>As for the "35 years of programming", making fun of it is as rude as
>mocking a new-bee (although he brought it on himself).

IMO, anyone who offers evidence of why they should be considered
superior either morally or technically has clearly raised the bar on how
their actions should be evaluated.

If I am trying to gain credence by claiming XX years of experience in
doing something then I should be prepared to have my credence challenged
based on that claim.

Also, IMO, stating that you have XX years in some field actually conveys
zero information since you could have been a complete and total screwup
for all of those years.  In my vast 29 years of experience, I have not
seen very many (if any) arguments won by resorting to claims of vast
knowledge due to the mere fact that you've managed to live in an
industry for some amount of time.*  Actions speak louder than rhetoric.
That's one of the reason that I frequently ask for patch contributions.

Also, if I am assuming a moral high ground as a place to condemn others
for their lack of "moral strength" then I should try to exhibit a high
degree of morality or be called accountable for not doing so.

Anyway, I've blocked this person from future posts here.  He didn't seem
interested in further dialog anyway.

cgf

*Yes, yes.  I know.  It's called "irony".

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple