peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/01/89)
It has been brought to my attention that this message chain is being crossposted to comp.sys.mac and comp.sys.amiga. I apologise for failing to notice that, and will refrain from continuing this conversation. I would like to ask, though, that people feeling the temptation to stir things up with this sort of provocative message resist in the future... -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`
soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) (10/23/90)
Dear Netters, I recently wrote an offensive article to this newsgroup, which upon future reflection, was uncalled for. I suppose what really annoyed me was when this interaction took place: In article <6828@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <2356@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: >> I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or >> Intuition or Windows. > >You're not a programmer. [ ... verbose gibberings by me deleted ... ] I should have written something more sensible and to the point, instead of getting angry and possibly infuriating someone else. It just goes to show that taking a day to think instead of instantly responding to any remark is a much better practice. I would now like to apologise to Peter, and to anyone else on the net I may have offended. ------ Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/23/90)
In article <2382@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: >Dear Netters, > >I recently wrote an offensive article to this newsgroup, which upon >future reflection, was uncalled for. I suppose what really annoyed me >was when this interaction took place: > >In article <6828@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <2356@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: >>> I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or >>> Intuition or Windows. >> >>You're not a programmer. > >[ ... verbose gibberings by me deleted ... ] > >I should have written something more sensible and to the point, >instead of getting angry and possibly infuriating someone else. It >just goes to show that taking a day to think instead of instantly >responding to any remark is a much better practice. > >I would now like to apologise to Peter, and to anyone else on the net >I may have offended. Hey, I liked the daylights out of your rant! Especially the 9 billion names of Peter part! I'm sure Mr. da Silva, in his more lucid moments, would be among the first to admit he needs his shirt unstuffed occasionally by a little emergency napalm surgery. [As do we all.] He knows better than to make unwarranted assumptions about what other netters do for a living. /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/23/90)
In article <2382@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: > I would now like to apologise to Peter, and to anyone else on the net > I may have offended. I'll apologise too, for jumping to conclusions. I'm sure people will find any window system acceptable if it's what they started with, but I've been spoiled by having the O/S (Server, etc) do it's job for so long that I'm not about to put up with one that expects the application to. Whether it's MS-DOS (which requires every program to do thir own serial drivers), MacOS (where every program is responsible for scheduling) or X (where the application is responsible for maintaining display integrity) it seems to me a waste of time to duplicate functions needlessly. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.