From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13898 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2009 18:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 13891 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2009 18:33:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.184) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:33:05 +0000 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id e27so39646nfd.18 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.0.206 with SMTP id 56mr563453web.102.1237401182419; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?82.6.108.62? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f3sm667988nfh.5.2009.03.18.11.33.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49C140A8.2090404@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:33:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: under cygwin, zsh cannot run when built against ncurses9-5.7-13 References: <49BF1770.9020007@gmail.com> <49C00B83.8050302@gmail.com> <20090317222721.GB1505@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <49C07781.1090702@gmail.com> <20090318053237.GA31643@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <49C09521.4000400@gmail.com> <20090318151121.GA3581@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20090318151121.GA3581@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-q1/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:30:57AM +0000, Dave Korn wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> Your reading of the Makefile is not right. >> Well hey! Maybe there's a simple explanation that doesn't assume malice >> on my part after all. You're being hypersensitive and I never kicked >> your puppy anyway. > > Do you really want to escalate this by name calling? "Hypersensitive"? Name-calling? Your hyperbolic reaction comes dangerously close to proving my point. > I find it ironic > that you'd be labelling me as hypersensitive at this particular > juncture. This sentence is semantically equivalent to "NO U". Technically that's not escalation, it's just more of the same. cheers, DaveK