From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10757 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2005 02:12:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: Talk Amongst Yourselves Received: (qmail 10733 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2005 02:12:18 -0000 Received: from c-66-30-17-189.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:12:18 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 6C3AF13CA7E; Tue, 31 May 2005 22:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:43:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Talk Amongst Yourselves Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) Message-ID: <20050601021216.GJ9864@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: Talk Amongst Yourselves References: <20050531213812.GC9672@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050531233916.62E6213C9D9@cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050531233916.62E6213C9D9@cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-q2/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >>You got that right. Imagine what would happen if we were to get too >>deeply into my behavioral problems. > >Better yet, imagine what would happen if you suddenly decided to behave >in a mature and at least semi-professional manner. Yeah, there's certainly no fun there. >>My bed wetting might return and then I'd have to add my wife's name to >>the 99.99% of the people in the cygwin community who hate my guts. > >I think that one's called a "persecution complex". That's #3 today for the psychological assessments. That may be a daily record for you. >Nobody in the Cygwin community hates you Chris. I certainly don't. I >just want you to behave yourself, much like any sixth-grader is able >and expected to do. Gee, I have to stop feeding you straight lines. You really hit that one out of the park! >>You know I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone who was sincerely >>trying to help... > >You expect sympathy, but refuse to give any? Interesting. You really do have my sympathy Gary. I'm truly sorry that I haven't made that clear before. And, believe it or not, I say this with no humorous intent. I really mean it. >>Btw, I think that's #2 for the term "behavioral problems". We're >>currently stalled at 5 for the term "flame-off". > >Does counting the number of times I use particular terms or phrases >somehow help you cope with your issues, Chris? Yes. It does. Categorizing someone's needs to compulsively repeat observations really does help me. So, I guess you really are helping me after all. In your own way. On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:40:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >So, he (Gary) was assuming that a message that you sent at 9AM EDT on >Thursday was going to see some sort of harsh response more than twelve >hours later. On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >This seems very similar to how you were (are?) so enamored with the >number of hours between the time somebody posted a question and the >time I posted a response. cgf