Re: Why is "shutdown abort", then backup bad

bbulsara23_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> David, the irony of your posting. I apparently have poor vocabulary and
> have repeated spelling mistakes in this thread. Read what YOU have
> written. You start your message with a typo "Youe" and then the first
> small paragraph includes "Maunal" and "acronoym". Later you even write
> "re-write", it's one word "rewrite". I can't help but laugh outloud, or
> should that be owtlowd. So before you exhort to an ad-hominen attack
> on me on very shaky grounds, you have better to be sure of your own
> literary skills. Demonstrably these are questionable too, by your own
> rules!
>

My literary skills are quite good, much better than those you've displayed in this thread with such non-words as 'earnt' and 'uncareful'; 'earned' is the proper spelling, and 'uncareful' is not a word. From all of my posts in this thread but one contained three typographical errors. I shall accept the misspelling of rewrite as a legitimate criticism. But before you laugh at my literary skills you should examine your own, what with non-words and dangling participles strewn about.

> > though I were a cheerleader. Your comments on Daniel were
> > based upon his demanding apologies, nothing more. Now you
> > include his entire
>
> I could give you many examples of Daniels rudeness. But the world
> doesn't have the bandwidth for this futile exercise.

I wasn't aware the world had bandwidth, in networking terms. Possibly you don't care to take the time to repeat that which is readily found in the newsgroup archives; so be it.

> Daniel is often
> very rude. Fact. Just search Google for his name and your favourite
> expletive. He rubs people up the wrong way. Fact. At times it is just
> more that RTFM too. He has posted numerous uncareful comments that many
> could and do take offence at.

He has posted many comments some may read as unfeeling, and to which many may take offence. This does not give you licence to use inflammatory wording in a misguided effort to 'request' a behaviour change.

> Just search out <quote>Get back to your
> home country by working on a freighter or appealing to your embassy to
> take pitty on your pathetic soul</quote>. But then maybe he is a warm
> cosy fellow and I have read him all wrong.
>
> >
> > "Please refrain from using RTFM in your posts as many
> > may find the term offensive and vulgar."
> >
> > if that is the sentiment you intended to put forth will
> > be received far more favorably than using this:
> >
> > "This tone is not wanted in this newsgroup, from anyone.
> > This includes you Mladen Gogala."
>
> English is my second language. Rereading my posts this is probably a
> fair point. It didn't occur to me when I made the original post.
> Because many people are posting in this thread I wanted to remove the
> ambiguity of who I was talking to.
>
> Barry

Removing ambiguity is one thing; demanding behavioural change based upon your sensibilities is another. You chose, and implemented, the second path and, in its course, delivered a far more rude message and the idea you were, indeed, attempting to moderate the newsgroup. Hence the plethora of negative responses to your initial, poorly worded statement.
This is not 'probably a fair point', it IS the point, and it is quite fair. You, in your haste and relative unfamiliarity with the nuances of the English language put forth a statement which was, to you, a 'polite' missive 'asking' for specific language to not be used but was, to others, a blatant attempt to control the newsgroup content by demanding such responses be stopped.

Your ranting about Daniel Morgan, Sybrand Bakker and others has little to do with your choice of verbiage and the inflammatory tone it conveyed. There have been sufficient comments as to the brusqueness of Daniel Morgan's, Sybrand Bakker's and others posts in this newsgroup; simply search the archives and you'll likely find many posts taking Daniel, Sybrand and others to task for use of seemingly inflammatory statements. That you also chose to do so is not the problem; your selection of an equally obnoxious tone and failure to realise or admit to your actions is the issue. Hopefully you now realise it was both what you said and how you said it which caused consternation. And, hopefully, you'll better word your responses to avoid this issue in the future.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Mon Aug 08 2005 - 11:39:35 CDT