Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:27:18 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/19482: Upgrade from 4.0-RELEASE to 4.0-STABLE causes RIP packets to be dropped Message-ID: <79850.963311238@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:21:42 %2B0200." <20000711122142.I83055@lucifer.bart.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:21:42 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> Apparantly you have negative feeling when I use botched. I don't
> associate it with anything negative nor have I received complaints about
> the usage of botched in the responses.
Trust me, the word "botched" in the English language is negative.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Botch \Botch\, n.; pl. {Botches}. [Same as Boss a stud. For
senses 2 & 3 cf. D. botsen to beat, akin to E. beat.]
1. A swelling on the skin; a large ulcerous affection; a
boil; an eruptive disease. [Obs. or Dial.]
Botches and blains must all his flesh emboss.
--Milton.
2. A patch put on, or a part of a garment patched or mended
in a clumsy manner.
3. Work done in a bungling manner; a clumsy performance; a
piece of work, or a place in work, marred in the doing, or
not properly finished; a bungle.
[...]
3. To put together unsuitably or unskillfully; to express or
perform in a bungling manner; to spoil or mar, as by
unskillful work.
> Sorry, but I am going to describe the stuff I do with the correct words
> in my opinion.
You're doing work that has to it a public relations aspect. You have a
responsibility to be careful with your words. Why are you being so
stubborn about this, anyway?
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?79850.963311238>