RE: CGF gripes; was -> Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

Ah, yeah, the Cygwin community would never forgive me if I didn't chime in
here:

> From: Larry Hall (Cygwin)
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:00 PM
> Subject: CGF gripes; was -> Re: Why are Windows paths broken 
> in make 3.81?
> 
> Mark Fisher wrote:
> > On 7/24/06, Joachim Achtzehnter <joachima AT netacquire DOT com> wrote:
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

AHEM.  That's one.

> >> This sarcastic response to one sentence out of a much longer post 
> >> quoted in isolation suggests that a clarification is in order.
> > 
> > here here! i'd like to add that i'm getting fed up of reading 
> > sarcastic comments from cgf since i rejoined the mailing list.
> > 
> > this particular gem:
> > 
> >>> I assumed the compiled program would work in a bash shell but it 
> >>> only works in a dos shell-its too late to worry about why 
> that is. I 
> >>> miss unix.
> >>
> >> Yeah, things work a lot better in a dos shell on unix.
> > ( http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-07/msg00682.html )
> > 
> > the sole comment to an entire post sums up for me a very arrogant 
> > attitude towards people with less knowledge who need help.
> > 
> > this forum (i hope) was never meant as a personal sarcasm 
> area and to 
> > read it it's very annoying.
> > 
> > if you don't have something constructive to say, lay off 
> laying into 
> > people.
> 
> 
> For your own peace of mind while reading the list, put a :-) or
> ;-) after everything you read from cgf and it becomes hilarious.
> As it turns out, that's sometimes even the intent. ;-)
> 
> Since a continuation of the thread in this new direction is 
> really off-topic for this list, I'd suggest if you have a 
> follow-up that you'd like to make or if there are others that 
> would like to, it's
> best to <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TITTTL>.   I've reset 
> the "Reply-To"
> to facilitate the move.

Dude, you left the "cygwin at" in the Reply-To.  That's two.  And you other
two up there, Mark and Joachim, oh man, you guys, you are done for.

But Mark, just to answer your question about the "personal sarcasm area":
Original intentions, original int-schmen-tions.  You run *your* little
fiefdoms the way *you* want, and you let Chris run his the way he wants,
'kay?

Well... actually Red Hat's I guess... but still.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle