From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A1D138B43 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C97C9E0BD1; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:37:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from foo.stuge.se (foo.stuge.se [212.116.89.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 656A2E0BC7 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9612 invoked by uid 501); 6 Feb 2014 10:37:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20140206103722.9611.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:37:22 +0100 From: Peter Stuge To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] Re: dropping redundant stable keywords Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140205024806.7d08cb63@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391570147.3520.7.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205055544.6c3affea@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391616442.3160.6.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140206031254.7ef65acb@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140206035324.071a0f93@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140206071156.62e0e978@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140206084737.1742.qmail@stuge.se> <20140206110334.7d90e19b@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140206110334.7d90e19b@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Archives-Salt: 4371bcf9-9505-46ee-ba40-6c6e690c513a X-Archives-Hash: 406380daafdb893fdef6a4d0593ed1fa Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > Fwiw, the very same person I made that single one-word "Why?" to > > > has previously appreciated that I asked him. > > > > You can not extrapolate from that, and can certainly not assume that > > I will appreciate that you ask "Why?" in response to something I > > express later. > > There is no extrapolation intended; Thanks for clarifying that! > this has actually happened, Yep. > hence it is appropriate to use it as it referred to that previous question. Mh no not neccessarily. Recounting it the way you did in the context where you did makes it sound like you expect it to mean something also for more recent events. (Otherwise recounting it would add nothing but noise, which I think noone really wants to think that you (or anyone else) would do.) I understand that you did not intend this now that you've clarified, but you should also understand that this is how it sounded - possibly not just to me. Again, communication problem. :\ //Peter