From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 4 00:13:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA563106566C for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:13:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893A28FC0A for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:13:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id q040GUA6013103 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:16:30 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:16:30 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201201040016.q040GUA6013103@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20120103173943.5b47afc6@scorpio> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:13:32 -0000 Jerry wrote: > Chad Perrin articulated: > > > > Now you have really peaked my interest. On any given day, on a > > > Windows based forum, the terms: "FreePiss", open-sore", "Lsuck" > > > etcetera are freely thrown around. On Linux based forums, terms > > > like: "Winblows", "Microsucks", etcetera are freely used. Would you > > > please be so kind as to explain to me why it is morally correct to > > > use one set of terms but not the other? It is either right or it is > > > wrong. You cannot be slightly pregnant. I personally find such > > > terms morally repugnant; however, since they are commonly used on > > > this forum it appears that they are socially acceptable. Would you > > > not concur or are you going to try and bullshit your way out of > > > this one? > > > > 1. I didn't say it was "morally correct" to use one set of derogatory > > forms and "morally incorrect" to use the other. You are attributing > > arguments to me I never made. > > I just spent a half hour rereading every post on this thread to see if > I had inadvertently stated that you had stated in any way that it was > "morally correct". Guess what, there aren't any such statements. Jerry demonstrates, yet again, his intellectual dishonesty, and blindness. Anyone who reads what Jerry actually wrote, _as_quoted_verbaitm_above_, an -- unlike former President Clinton, understands what "is' means -- will have no trouble verifying that Jerry *did8, in fact, impute that viewpoint to Chad. > Neither did I make a claim that you supported such actions. I never > attributed any such remarks to you. I simple asked for you to explain > why it would be morally correct to do so. Jerry lies. nothing unusual about that, though. Jerry's reading comprehension skills -- of his *own* writing _ ar seriously lacking. He can't even _honestly_, or _accurately_ report what he previously wrote. Even when he quotes it. He did *NOT* ask the prior poster to explain "why it _would_be_ morally correct..." HE demanded that they explain "why it *IS* morally correct..." Implicit in that choice of verb ("is") is a presumption that the other person accepts/believes the 'truth' of the claim for which the explananation is demanded. Given his constant criticizm of other's writing and/or reading skills, Jerry cannot -- "believably", that is -- claim that this was an inavertent/unintentional error in usage on his part. > Your reading comprehensive > skills are seriously lacking. The fact that you would spend time to > defend yourself against a non-existent claim totally amazes me. The extent -- both in breadth, and depth -- of Jerry's delusions is not merely 'impressive; it is *truely* amazing. As is his constant projection of _his_ deficiencies on others.