[linux-elitists] Re: Yet another mozilla atrocity
Tue Oct 14 23:47:20 PDT 2003
Quoting Martin Pool (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> As opposed to paying attention to the direct contradiction in what you
> actually wrote?
> Rick later wrote:
> I had not been debating the merits of GConf.
> You said, in so many words, (1) that gconf utterly sucks, is not sane,
> is not good design, is not acceptable, is not a good way to store
> settings, makes a mess, is unfriendly, is undocumented, and (2) that
> you're not criticizing gconf, and responses to those criticisms are
> "non sequiters". This is inconsistent and certainly looks evasive,
> whatever your motives.
You are pointedly and stubborning ignoring context: As previously
mentioned, I was expressing irritation at the dramatic failure of
functionality I had just been assured it was really good at. It utterly
sucked _at that_. It was not good design _for that_. It was not
acceptable _as such_.
I had been (in essence) told to look at it from that perspective, so I
did. Which context you seem determined to ignore, even after being
repeatedly advised of it.
I realise that being a literalist fuckhead is an occupational hazard of
hackerdom, but I _do_ expect people to eventually pay attention to
At this point, I am not surprised that you are failing this basic
reading comprehension test -- but I am disappointed.
> I absolutely agree that gconf is underdocumented and that is a bad
Good. You could have saved yourself considerable embarrassment, by
saying so when I pointed it out the first time.
> You can stop flogging that point whenever you like.
Pot, meet event horizon.
Cheers, Dogs may have kept us company on the hunt, but it was
Rick Moen the cats who insisted we invent houses and discover fire.
email@example.com -- Khiem Tran
More information about the linux-elitists