X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:44:27 +0300
Message-Id: <834lrbv1us.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <or9k8d$b7j$2@gioia.aioe.org> (message from Rod Pemberton on Sat,
	7 Oct 2017 00:14:17 -0400)
Subject: Re: DOSBox?
References: <or6bl4$pdo$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
 <xnshexxjpr DOT fsf AT delorie DOT com>
 <or7gpa$jti$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
 <59d767c6$0$9406$426a74cc AT news DOT free DOT fr> <or9k8d$b7j$2 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
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
Precedence: bulk

> From: Rod Pemberton <EmailNullFile AT voenflacbe DOT cpm>
> Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 00:14:17 -0400
> 
> At least, I'm not being hostile, inciting unnecessary arguments,
> responding off-topic, spamming the group, nor lying, as Dj did.  :)

Actually, you are all of those.

> Where did I tell the OP something in a "harsh" way?

Once again: it was the "lying" part.

> The question is why did you take it to be harsh?

Because every reasonable person would.  Disagreement is not a lie, not
even close.

> So, why don't you ask Dj to stop initiating such divisive conflict?
> I simply informed the OP of the truth of the matter.  Dj wrongly
> took offense to that and incited an argument.

You may wish to re-read the thread to see what actually happened.

This sub-thread was started by _your_ message, not DJ's.  DJ didn't
take any offense (originally, until you called him a liar), he just
corrected your incorrect statement of the rules in this forum.  Which
was a reasonable thing to do, since someone who reads this forum could
have concluded incorrectly that top-posting here will cause some kind
of shaming of the poster.