[ubuntu-za] Stop the Anti-Unity / Gnome 3 FUD! [off topic]

[Peter Nel]

>>
>> FOUL!
>>
>> [snip: me complaining]
>>
>> ... and please stay on topic.
>
> Wow...  In the e-mail before this one, you say you do not understand my
> workflow based grouping, and in the e-mail you quote here, you cut out
> where I talk about how I do workflow based grouping.  But you got my
> comment on omgubuntu, and took it personally.  And then in the very next
> e-mail from you, you bemoan the lack of real technical problems, which
> this e-mail was a real insight into.  Not much I can add to either of
> those points, so how about a new one.
>
> I might like Unity a lot more if it was not dancing on the grave of Gnome 2.
>
>                        Lee

Yee-haww - we be havin' us an old style turkey shoot! :-)  Just
kidding... really. I'm gonna try have a sense of humor over this
before I hurt myself.
[If whom ever chooses to take offense at this, there's really nothing
I can do for you]

Lee, I snipped it because:
1) you guys keep complaining my posts are too long (read the first
couple of lines that that very same email from you); and
2) it was not pertinent to that particular response of mine to what
you said before.

I didn't understand your workflow based grouping before; I do now as
stated in a previous response to Quinton. So, we're putting this one
to bed.

Was your omgubuntu comment NOT aimed at me? If so, I retract my foul.

Furthermore, (...and I left this out before...) I fail to see how
bufferbloat was relevant to any of this. I've in fact read that entire
article when it came out a month ago - yes, it's about bufferbloat...
Perhaps an example of what a "technical" article should be like? Yes,
ok, technical blogs about technical things would be more... technical.
Blogs about subjective user opinions and polls, would be less so...
and the color of white is... white. (<-- foul! Peter having derogatory
tone. Bad form!! Peter: no, trying to illustrate the nature of
self-evident truths with simplified example)

So I "bemoaned the lack of technical problems"? [sarcasm:] What a
perfectly neutral way of putting it!?
If you read me correctly, I was simply -stating- in reference (and in
defense of my attempted humorous comment about "real geeks" and "real
problems") to previous mails, that there were indeed no real technical
problems being experienced (then presently discussed) - unless you
consider "forgetting where a setting is", or "having to install CCSM
to configure something" serious technical problems... IDK, perhaps
I've just been using linux longer than you, but I've broken my egg on
some seriously hard rocks in this thing.
Are you maybe still sour at me for rebuking you at the beginning of
this thread? If so... I'M SORRY, I stand down.


Ok... perhaps this didn't turn out to be so funny in the end... shoot me!

Cheers
Péter Nel