On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:07:14 -0400, triple_r wrote:

> Like my email messages, "Here's the file, do you think you could printf
> this out for me?"  I wish I could say I've only done that once.

I love it - I do that sort of thing all the time.  Not with 'printf', but 
other words, and even go back and correct them sometimes and misspell the 
word the same way a second and occasionally a third time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Well, you have fun with your broken threads and having to read my posts
> quoted by other people anyways, if you really killfiled me. (If you are
> just pretending, then you are more arrogant than I assumed.)

Another victim of emacs/vi-induced violence.  We should start a charitable
foundation for these victims.  I'm sure many of these incidents go unreported
each year.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   So if you did not deliberately nitpick, then what is the other possible
> > alternative? 

> That you're talking to people with a different perspective of what "just 
> editing" means, complaining that they have a different perspective, then 
> getting mad because they don't understand what your complaint is when you 
> use the same words they do to mean something different?

  Having a different concept of what a term means (which is understandable)
is rather different from deliberately misinterpreting when someone uses that
term to mean something slightly different.

  If I say "vi does not work like most other editors because when you start
it up you can't just start editing the text right away", isn't it rather
clear what I'm referring to, without having to write an essay about the
subject to make it absolutely clear? Even if you disagree with what is
meant by "start editing right away", I don't think it's difficult to
understand what I'm referring to, ie. what is the first basic difference
between vi and most other editors.

  In the context in question, starting to nitpick about what "start editing
the text right away" means was irrelevant and uncalled for. It was not the
point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2009 18:32, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:28:51 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Sae nae mair fechtin
>>>> Does that translate to: So no more fighting?
>>> Aye/Yes
>> Then the Nac Mac Feegle have done their job.
> 
> Those wee scunners?

yes.

Note to our mascot: you are not expected to understand this.

Post a reply to this message

triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Another victim of emacs/vi-induced violence.  We should start a charitable
> foundation for these victims.  I'm sure many of these incidents go unreported
> each year.

  It wasn't really an emacs vs. vi argument. Just a question of terminology
and who insulted who and how.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:03:40 -0400, Warp wrote:

> if you really killfiled me. 

You obviously have no concept of how I use my newsreader's scoring 
function.  I shall not respond in kind and imply you must therefore be 
stupid because you don't know how I work; I recognise that my usage is 
perhaps different than the norm.

> (If you are just pretending, then you are
> more arrogant than I assumed.)

Sticks and stones, Warp.

Let me give you an alternative definition of "arrogant": presuming to 
tell someone what is in their mind when they wrote something, and then 
implying that if what YOU assume was in their mind in fact wasn't, they 
then must be stupid because there couldn't *possibly* be any other 
explanation.

Perhaps you should go take look in a mirror and consider your word choice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   Well, you have fun with your broken threads and having to read my posts
>> quoted by other people anyways, if you really killfiled me. (If you are
>> just pretending, then you are more arrogant than I assumed.)
> 
> Another victim of emacs/vi-induced violence.  We should start a charitable
> foundation for these victims.  I'm sure many of these incidents go unreported
> each year.

It's a consequence of playing with flames. :)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Perhaps you should go take look in a mirror and consider your word choice.

  I honestly think your "Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately
misunderstanding you" was uncalled for. I was not in any way or form
trying to insult you (or Darren) in the post to which that was the reply,
and if you have followed my posts during the years, I think that you know
that I don't go around insulting people just for the fun of it (even if
sometimes my choice of words might not be the wisest possible).

  The tone of this thread was very casual and light, and such a sudden
very strong expression of offence was unexpected. I was not trying to say
anything negative about anyone. It got me rather provoked by the accusation
(although in retrospect way too much, but I'm just like that).

  I admit that what I wrote after getting provoked was also uncalled for
and not acceptable behavior.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:49:15 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Perhaps you should go take look in a mirror and consider your word
>> choice.
> 
>   I honestly think your "Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately
> misunderstanding you" was uncalled for.

Perhaps.  In my own defense, it was extremely late and it had been a 
pretty rough evening for me.  It was just the "one thing" that pushed me 
a little too far, and you have to admit that you do have a habit 
(9intentional or otherwise) of doing that - this isn't the first 
altercation we've had.

> I was not in any way or form
> trying to insult you (or Darren) in the post to which that was the
> reply, and if you have followed my posts during the years, I think that
> you know that I don't go around insulting people just for the fun of it
> (even if sometimes my choice of words might not be the wisest possible).

Honestly, sometimes it's hard to tell.  I usually chalk it up to cultural/
language differences, but it just struck me wrong last night, and then to 
have you follow up with the implication that if it wasn't an "intentional 
misunderstanding" intended to nitpick just for the sake of having 
something to nitpick (something that, if you've followed my posts over 
the years, you should recognise is not in my general makeup and is not 
something that I do just for the fun of it.  That's not to say that I 
don't like a healthy debate now and again, but it's generally not my 
style to twist people's words in order to provoke an argument or debate).

That's not to say that don't occasionally take the opportunity to "tweak 
someone's nose", but in those cases I try to be very careful to make it 
clear that I am just kidding around and not being serious.

>   The tone of this thread was very casual and light, and such a sudden
> very strong expression of offence was unexpected. I was not trying to
> say anything negative about anyone. It got me rather provoked by the
> accusation (although in retrospect way too much, but I'm just like
> that).
> 
>   I admit that what I wrote after getting provoked was also uncalled for
> and not acceptable behavior.

Fair enough, I apologise for overreacting as well.  Nobody's perfect and 
all that.

It does really get on my nerves when it appears people are presuming to 
tell me what I'm thinking, I put up with a lot of that crap along with  
generally being bullied growing up, and it "pushes my buttons" when it 
appears people are doing it to me or to others around me - and sometimes 
I do react overly strongly as a result of my own personal experiences in 
this area.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I usually chalk it up to cultural/language differences

  In my case I'd say it's not so much about cultural or language differences
as much as inexperience in social interaction.

  When 90% of your social interaction happens through the internet, it
sometimes shows.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message