From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25929 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2010 17:32:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 25919 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2010 17:32:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iw0-f200.google.com (HELO mail-iw0-f200.google.com) (209.85.223.200) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:32:50 +0000 Received: by iwn38 with SMTP id 38so811951iwn.8 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.2.11 with SMTP id 11mr3630567wfb.51.1270661568713; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.99] (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v41sm2341762wfh.21.2010.04.07.10.32.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BBCC625.8050208@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:32:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thread Righteously TITTTL'd Subject: Re: installer improvements References: <4BBB2836.3000601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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: 2010-q2/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 On 07/04/2010 13:18, wefwef wefwef wrote: > Nice explanation if it was actually true, but it's just an assumption > you have made, based on your opinion that the cygwin installer is > flawless. LOL, are you having some kind of identity crisis? It was *you* who said that, remember? It was a rhetorical exaggeration you made up in order to misrepresent what I was saying in order to start an argument so that you could divert attention away from the topic of the other thread, which was whether or not one very specific bug did or did not exist. Nobody else has said anything like it at any time. It's only you: it's your standard response to anyone who disagrees with you about anything. Do you know what a "False dilemma", or "Fallacy of the excluded middle" is? It's a logical fallacy of the form "Either you believe setup.exe has bug X, or you believe setup.exe is perfect and has no bugs at all". Of course that's not remotely true, there are many other possibilities, such as believing that setup.exe has other bugs but not bug X. Do you know what a "straw man" argument is? Do you know what the words "specious", "misrepresentation", and "sophistry" mean? You'll need to familiarise yourself with all those terms if you're going to carry on using this line of argument. > Cygwin are obviously convinced that their software is perfect and will > ignore anyone who implies otherwise. Who exactly is "Cygwin"? An invisible friend of yours? PROTIP: If it seems like the whole world is against you, it's not because there's a conspiracy, it's because they've all independently reached the conclusion that you're a dufus because you actually are a dufus. cheers, DaveK -- The dog ate my log files!