FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation

Walter Alejandro Iglesias roquesor at
Wed Jan 4 17:02:30 UTC 2012

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 08:50:45AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:33:28PM +0100, Walter Alejandro Iglesias wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 09:55:04PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:07:36PM -0800, Chip Camden wrote:
> > > > Quoth Chad Perrin on Tuesday, 03 January 2012:
> > > > > 
> > > > > So . . . please start with the denotative meanings of words, consider
> > > > > your audience, and use words accordingly.  If you wish to use a term
> > > > > differently than how it is understood, make sure you clarify that fact up
> > > > > front.  If others refuse to go along with it, find a different term to
> > > > > use that can better convey the meaning you wish to convey.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If everyone followed your advice here, Chad, then 99% of the arguments on the
> > > > Internet would evaporate.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for noticing!
> > 
> > Well Chad, you crossed the line.  I don't need any
> > "clarification" to understand this last statement like a poor
> > insult.  Let's do an exercise; you need it:
> Wait -- what?  I responded to someone other than you who commented
> (humorously, I thought) on the fact that the majority of arguments on the
> Internet are about terminology.  How the heck is that an insult to you?
> > 
> > 1) "popularity"	"demagogy"	"rights"
> > 2) "lawyer"	"demand"	"rights"
> > 
> > By analogy:
> > 
> > 1) "bicycle"	"road"		"wheel"
> > 2) "Unix"	"groups"	"wheel"
> > 
> > See?
> Not really.

The same happened to you with what I said about "rights", you
didn't see the point.  Then based in your misunderstood you
adventured yourself to "teach" me how to expose my thinking.

I will teach you something about life:

1) Never underestimate what others say.
2) Never think you understand at "a frist sight" what others say
an their aim.
3) Never think you have a clear idea about nothing.

The day you reach this point of maturity you will not reach to
false conclusions like the following:

> The only exception that comes immediately to mind is the case where you
> may actually *want* to confuse and annoy people, and spark flame wars on
> the Internet, but it was not my belief anyone was trying to do that in
> this case.

Confuse and annoy people?  Oh boy, confuse and annoy mature
people is not so easy.  Flame wars?  I am not an adolescent, I
have real problems in my life.  Don't be stupid.

> It's nice that you can dismiss people as irrelevant or unreachable when
> they try offering information in the spirit of helpfulness and
> correctness so easily.  It must make things easy for you, I guess, though
> in this case I am not really sure how.

Both statements are the conclusion you reach about me and,
believe me, are far of the true.  I can do the same you are
doing and judge you like someone that conscious of it own
mediocrity knows that must play dirty.  To take words, sentences
or meanings out of the context to distort and discredit the
others discourse is the typical trick of this kind of people.
Other conclusion I could reach about you is you are afraid I rob
"your audience", yes this audience that you judge from your
"superior" point of view like susceptible to be confused or
annoyed.  Jealously is other characteristic of people
concious of its own mediocrity.  That's why I put you clear it
is not my interest to reach "your" audience, ergo I am not your

But instead of all this shit I preferred first to think that
your misunderstood came from you lack of "association"
capabilities.  I project my honesty in others in the same way
you project your hypocrisy.

The day you reach to understand the three points I told you
above perhaps you will be able to make things easy for yourself.
In the meanwhile, please don't try to correct what you are not
able to understand.  Correct yourself.

> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list