From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29462 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2010 05:55:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 29450 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2010 05:55:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-76-48-4.bstnma.east.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.48.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.83/v0.83-20-g38e4449) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:55:34 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA3313C061 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 30C232B352; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:55:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Constructive criticism Message-ID: <20100729055532.GA18691@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com References: <20100728001415.GD4000@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4C50E8DD.3010806@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C50E8DD.3010806@gmail.com> 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: 2010-q3/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 03:35:09AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >On 28/07/2010 01:14, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 07:55:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >>> Darn, dropped the punchline: >>> >>>>> Your code is 100% bogus and should be taken out the back, >>>>> lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned. >>>>> >>>>> Then the bleeding corpse should be hung, drawn and quartered. >>>>> >>>>> Then burnt. >>>>> >>>>> Then the smouldering rubble should be jumped up and down on. >>>> >>>> By a hippo >> >> Oh boy. That brought back memories. I guess I'm glad I'm not the >> object of the discussion though. > > Clearly, I was too subtle in that reply. It doesn't seem that anyone in >that thread was distinguishing between criticising someone's code and >criticising the person themselves. Oh well, never mind. I'm certainly well aware of the distinction but it's not one that I've had much luck with myself. > Well, I'm too busy to care right now anyway, I've got a whole bunch of >parents that I have to go and tell that their babies are ugly! Wait! Dave! Stop! Oh boy. I'll bet it's too late. cgf