FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation
bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Wed Jan 4 21:04:58 UTC 2012
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 06:17:55AM -0500, Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:16:30 -0600 (CST) Robert Bonomi articulated:
> > 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..."
> Would you please be so kind as to explain to me why ..."
> You consider that a demand?
Coupled with the verb 'is' -- which you "conveniently" failed to quote,
and the overall argumentative and confrontational tone of the rest of
your posting, the answer that any 'reasonable man' would give is "Yes".
> I am not bashful, as you may have noticed. I simple asked him to
> explain why such behavior would be morally acceptable.o
You are a liar. You have now *twice* materially mis-represennted an
deliberately distorted what you said. There is a MADERIAAL DIFFERENCE
between "would be", and "is". Especially so, in the manner and context
in which you used the words.
> At that point he
> made the accusation that I had attributed such statements, directly or
> indirectly to him. I neither did, nor is there any evidence to support
> the claim that I had.
You lie, again.
Your psuedo-"request" that he explain "why it _IS_ morally acceptable"
*DOES* carry the implicationi/connotation that _you_ believe that the
person addressed (Chad) does hold the belief in question. You stand
convicted by your own use of language of attributing succh to Chad.`
> Both of you choose to conveniently sidestep that
> simple fact.
You lie, yet a third time.
I *directly* addrerssed _WHERE_ and _HOW_ you =did= attribute such
beliefs to Chad.
More information about the freebsd-questions