From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chris Moore Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C file recoginzed as image file Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: References: <85irfhidmw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168290292 25654 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2007 21:04:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, c.a.rendle@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 08 22:04:49 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H41fh-0000Bu-VI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:04:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H41fh-0001cC-CY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:04:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H41dz-0000EE-Jy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:02:59 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H41dz-0000DH-35 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:02:59 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H41dy-0000D4-Qa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:02:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.249.92.168] (helo=ug-out-1314.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H41dy-0005h7-0w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:02:58 -0500 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so7091771ugf for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:02:57 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:to:cc:references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-sa-exim-connect-ip:x-sa-exim-mail-from:x-spam-checker-version:x-spam-level:x-spam-status:subject:x-sa-exim-version:x-sa-exim-scanned:sender; b=iPPWImcydzZfChxjQnh4tQ0MGb2dmf1+t2IGCIm7+0KU8QNwwa4ccdmcsyH0FhDn4Rf1rtlOXnIV+oazMpXeR/QyzNsUv6LIo7c+MTWURGdUdR7k5btb4YjPlhtF528WBqNcPvvFHvvw9ZQl8/1rryIFDydaIkyw+npNeMTBsNM= Original-Received: by 10.66.243.2 with SMTP id q2mr35350129ugh.1168290176400; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:02:56 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from chrislap.local ( [89.176.28.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m1sm33416561ugc.2007.01.08.13.02.54; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:02:55 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chrislap.local) by chrislap.local with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H41dq-0002Dz-SV; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:02:52 +0100 Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: <85irfhidmw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Mon\, 08 Jan 2007 19\:20\:39 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dooglus@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:39:09 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on chrislap.local) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:65008 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Even if you want to use this kind of "logical argument", it can be > done in a way that does not insinuate stupidity on the audience's > side. Compare your version: I didn't insinuate stupidity on anyone's side. > In short: try to make it your job to show how a particular technical > choice leads to bad results in certain cases, not to show that you > think someone else has worse judgment than you do. That is what I was trying to do. I'm sorry that I'm not very good at making myself clear, but I don't see how what I said could be seen as insinuating stupidity. Do you really think that's what Richard's problem with my sentence was? Because he said that he read it as "a sarcastic attack".