From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15907 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2009 15:37:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 15896 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2009 15:37:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-76-42-77.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.42.77) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:36:45 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343E53B0002 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:36:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 2F45B2B352; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:36:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:37:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [1.7] su (goldstar) Message-ID: <20091120153635.GA24007@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com References: <31b7d2790911191346g53aafad3w8a4196fc2cc0a859@mail.gmail.com> <20091119215258.GB14033@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20091120004015.GA14403@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20091120141955.GC18289@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091120141955.GC18289@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-q4/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 09:19:55AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 05:54:50PM -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote: >>On 11/19/2009 05:40 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:26:53PM -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote: >>>>Sometimes no is exactly the right answer. >>>It's a fun way of answering a Yes/No question and I've done it >>>countless times myself. The recipient of the "No" *usually* finds more >>>explanation and, more importantly, alternate ways of doing things more >>>useful. >>*Emphasis above (and below) mine* >> >>Ergo *sometimes* no is exactly the right answer. This is exactly what >>I said. Glad you agree with me. > >Redirected to cygwin-talk. > >Please don't continue the discussion here. Well, that's confusing. I obviously was a little too zealous in my changing of cygwin's to cygwin-talk's. Probably just as well. It was a predictably stupid discussion anyway. cgf