From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30010 invoked by alias); 27 May 2012 03:35:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 29875 invoked by uid 22791); 27 May 2012 03:35:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nihxway5out.hub.nih.gov (HELO nihxway5out.hub.nih.gov) (128.231.90.113) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 May 2012 03:35:40 +0000 X-IronPortListener: Outbound_SMTP X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EANGfwU+cKEcU/2dsb2JhbABEtRiBB4IYAQEEEihPAgEIDScCEB8TJQEBBBsah2mcAZtYiwOEX2ADjHiOEIoAgnw Received: from unknown (HELO NIHHT01.nih.gov) ([156.40.71.20]) by nihxway5out.hub.nih.gov with ESMTP; 26 May 2012 23:35:38 -0400 Received: from NIHMLBX02.nih.gov ([156.40.71.32]) by NIHHT01.nih.gov ([156.40.71.20]) with mapi; Sat, 26 May 2012 23:35:38 -0400 From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]" To: "cygwin-talk@cygwin.com" Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 03:35:00 -0000 Subject: RE: New Cygwin release Message-ID: <0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A20A770AB41C@NIHMLBX02.nih.gov> References: <20120526213854.GA10950@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-q2/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 David Eisner sent the following at Saturday, May 26, 2012 6:35 PM >> Earnie's observations were spot on. As a project maintainer himself he >> knows what a waste of bandwidth these messages are. If his message will >> make someone think twice before sending something a similar "why don't >> you do your job" message then that's a good thing. > >I'm reading between the lines, but are you of the opinion that the >hostile tone is a helpful way to keep users from sending such messages >in the future? It's my fault. I mentioned that Chris seemed to have mellowed so one might have expected that he might try to prove otherwise. But it still not to the old standard. (Sorry, Chris.) The advantage of WJM is that people who are paying attention and want to avoid flames take care to be respectful, thankful, and avoid being presumptuous. That is certainly what I've tried to do. - Barry Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.