No offense.
BTW: I tend to prefer cats, they chase rats.
EOM.
Yours,
JeanHuguesRobert
At 08:10 16/06/2004 +0900, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 15 June 2004 15:56, Jean-Hugues ROBERT wrote:
>> At 06:46 16/06/2004 +0900, you wrote:
>> >On Tuesday 15 June 2004 14:36, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> >> Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean / celsoft.com] :
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > Oh, it's fine when personalized insults about the quality of my
>> >> > projects are posted here, but not when I return the same.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. I commented specifically on what I saw as shortcomings of
>> >> your testing library and what I thought a better action would have
>> >> probably been. I *did* make comments about your attitude, proven in
>> >> spades, but not an insult.
>> >>
>> >> Honestly, Sean: chill. Contribute to the community.
>> >
>> >I do contribute, and don't count on me "chilling" with anyone who holds
>> >conversations with me the way some people do around here.  It's not going
>> > to happen.  To get respect, give it, don't ask for it for the sake of
>> > "the community."  You and several others have been entirely childish,
>> > ignorant, obstinate, illiterate and willfully prideful, unwilling to
>> > admit the simplest mistakes such as not knowing the meaning of the word
>> > "arbitrary" and having to look it up and argue as if it's not a word used
>> > every day in the English language but rather something to dissect and
>> > twist around.
>> >
>> >Take the personal stuff private, and I'll do the same.  So long as it
>> > comes out here, my replies will be here.  Anything worth replying to
>> > posted here will be replied here.  If you want to go off-list, then email
>> > me.
>> >
>> >        Sean O'Dell
>>
>> <META>
>> Mailing list threads are great. I wish there would be two modes:
>>   - Factual mode.
>>   - Emotionnal mode.
>> That way, people could filter out emotional stuff when they like facts
>> only.
>> </META>
>>
>> Back to emotions.
>>
>> Hum... I am still waiting for you to:
>>   1) Admit that "arbitrary" means multiple things, most of them being
>> very negative and that consequently using it did lead to confusion.
>
>You're another one who seems overly concerned with getting certain kinds of 
>responses from me.  I will say only this: I used arbitrary properly, I meant 
>no harm when I used it, and that few words can be described with absolute 
>certainty.  If you want more, I suggest you adopt a dog; they will obey your 
>commands.
>
>>   2) Find a better adjective, to contribute to cleaning the confusion.
>
>Are you unaware that I removed the word "arbitrary" back when the thread began 
>and it was noted that its use was being taken badly?
>
>> Now, having to look it up, as I did, is in no way the sign of
>> a lack of knowledge, it is not a mistake either. I looked it up to provide
>> *you* with some authoritative information, hoping that you would understand
>> why "arbitrary" generated such confusion, due to its multiple meanings.
>
>I looked it up, too, in three places, to make sure I wasn't mis-using the 
>word, as I had begun to suspect after the complaints started.  It turns out I 
>was correct, and several people in the thread agreed that my use was valid.
>
>> In light of that information, you may understand that calling me:
>>   "childish, ignorant, obstinate, illiterate and willfully prideful,
>>   unwilling to admit the simplest mistakes"
>> hurts my feelings. If you care about that I'll be happy to hear your
>> apologies.
>
>I'm sorry for hurting your feelings, I really am.
>
>        Sean O'Dell
>
>ng your feelings, I really am.
>
>        Sean O'Dell

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web:  http://hdl.handle.net/1030.37/1.1
Phone: +33 (0) 4 92 27 74 17