FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation

Robert Bonomi bonomi at
Wed Jan 4 00:13:32 UTC 2012

 Jerry <jerry at> 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 

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. 

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list