Re: GNOME personas

[Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas urgent rug ac be>]

> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I'm sorry no one is there to hug you,

I'd suggest you come to grips with your dormant sexuality problem.  I'm 
fine with whatever comes out of your long overdue introspection as long as 
you deal with it.

> but you're welcome to look over the
> mailing list archive and see for yourself. The "new" idea Havoc is proposing
> is the same one he and others shot down 4 years ago.

I have no doubt that it is - you're just missing the point that everyone's 
fed up with you SAYING SO all the time.  The originality of your ideas is 
lost in the miserable excuse for communication you wrap it in.  At which 
point I don't even bother to check the facts on your statement because 
your attitude makes me not care.  Havoc steals good ideas all the time, 
it's one of his strong points, as well as seeming to be the running gag in 
the community.

> Priceless. I couldn't
> make up stuff like that if I tried.

You are right, the stuff you make up to wrap up your silly ego displays is 
no where close to anything real life is.  I mean, I enjoy nigerian scam 
mails more than your posts because at least the writing is funny.

> Anyway, Im sure he's a smart guy, and he
> means well.

The "he means well" part is why he gets a lot more "support" for his 
"crazy" ideas than you do.  Take a hint.  No, really.  Take a hint.  This 
is a voluntary community, so take a hint.  We respect people here based on 
their actions, not their words.  Your words aren't even worth respecting 
anyway.

>  Everyone can be a little forgetful sometimes.

We are all trying to be so when it comes to you.

> Also, you're not required by law to like me. 
A liberty I take much joy in.

>If it angers you when people
> say you're wrong and point out why, it might be time for you to consider a
> different line of work.

I don't think you've said why I would be wrong or why I would be.  I'm 
pretty sure that I'd value other's people opinions about it more than 
yours anyway.

> Simply put, it's not my responsibility to correct
> you publically than it is my responsibility to teach you in the first place.

So why are you trying ?

> You're an adult, aren't you? Or are you one of those kids who hits the Reply
> button before looking it up?

No, but I do time the intervals between two reply hits, and my stopwatch 
says you replied a hell of a lot quicker to my mail than I did to yours in 
this thread :)
I imagine a socially disjoint Bowie sitting in front of his computer 
wearing only his pyjamas because he's not going to leave the house anyway 
since people at the store give him blank stares when he suggests that the 
bread slicer machine ought to be color-reactive to indicate if the bread 
is sliced well, or being sliced, or no bread is in, screaming "you WILL 
one day SEE the light and I WILL then scream how it was my idea", and I 
see him waiting for some stupid newbie like me to actually reply to the 
100% certified useless posts so you can DIVE RIGHT IN and pick up the 
pace.

As a courtesy to the other gnome people who've long given up on you (can 
you tell I'm rather new ?) I will refrain from replying publically to 
whatever drivel you have the time for posting.

If you're so smart, start by figuring out WHY it is there doesn't seem to 
be anyone who is actually agreeing with possibly valid points you're 
making.  Simply put, your signal-to-noise ratio is negative.  Hey man, 
slow down.

Thomas

 -- 

The Dave/Dina Project : future TV today ! - http://davedina.apestaart.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
Ooh child I'll meet you child
On the sunny side it's alright
<-*- thomas  (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, the best radio on the Internet - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.rug.ac.be/