RE: chmod permission denied on windows 2008

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

> From: Dave Korn
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 1:11 PM
> To: 'at least topicality meta-discussions are always 
> on-topic, thank bob!'

This is a "meta-discussion"?  I'm not even sure what that means, but I'm
glad they're on-topic for a topic-free list ;-).

> Subject: RE: chmod permission denied on windows 2008
> 
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote on 04 July 2008 18:46:
> 
> >> From:  Dave Korn
> >> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:35 PM
> >> To: Thread TITTTL'd!
> >> Subject: FW: chmod permission denied on windows 2008
> >> 
> >> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote on 04 July 2008 17:42:
> >> 
> >>>> From: Christopher Faylor
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 11:22:03PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
> >>>>> Hope this gets through the lists broken spam detection, 
> and helps 
> >>>>> id the issue.
> >>>> 
> >>>> How to Win Friends and Influence People...
> >>>> 
> >>>> cgf
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Please take such Cygwin-content-free snarking to the appropriate 
> >>> list please.
> >> 
> >>   Funny that you should see snarking about "broken spam 
> detection" as 
> >> Cygwin-content-related and it's only the reply that you thought 
> >> off-topic. It does give you the appearance of operating a 
> >> double-standard.
> >> 
> > 
> > The OP's post did not consist solely of snarking about "broken spam 
> > detection".
> 
>   Ah, you are trying to establish that you operate a 
> consistent standard.

Mainly just trying to answer your accusation of double-standard, but sure,
I'll play along.

> Good, but I'm not sure you are correct.
> 

I'm correct.  Check the posts.

>   In the past, other people have also made solely snarking 
> posts which you have not complained about.  Likewise and by 
> contrast, others have in the past made posts that, while 
> snarky, were not solely snarky, and which you have complained about.
>

I'd quibble about the term "complain".  The current brou-ha-ha we are
discussing here was a simple request for the good of the list, nothing more.

>   Therefore I don't think that's really the full and sole 
> criterion you're really applying.  I think you apply 
> different criteria depending on the OP's "From:" header.
>

You've been keeping score?  While I'm flattered, I do have to say that I can
think of literally half a dozen more productive endeavors.

But to your point:  As others will be happy to inform you, it's not my job
to police these forums.  Indeed, should you choose to do so, I'm sure you
will find many examples of people snarking for snark's sake, both in
Cygwin-content-free posts or otherwise, with "From:" headers of all stripes,
where neither I nor anyone else requested that said snarking be taken
elsewhere.  Like Regis Philbin, I am only one man, and I don't think you can
seriously accuse me of applying a "double standard" simply because I can't
be everywhere at once!

As a meta-comment on this meta-discussion though: Dave, are you sure we want
to be throwing around accusations of "double standards" at all here?  I
mean, there are a lot of glass houses 'round those parts.

>     cheers,
>       DaveK
> --
> Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
> 

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle