[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Half-baked unused features.

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Half-baked unused features.
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:51:43 +0100

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> There is sufficient disagreement that I consider it useful to get a
>>> more qualified point of view.
>> That would hurt if I didn't agree with you completely.  :-)
> Why would it hurt you if I check what my actual efforts for "jumping
> through the proper hoops" are?

no, no... that was a joke.  I was making a joke about your (justified)
saying that my point of view was not qualified.

I mean, completely rewritten / reinterpreted for humorous effect:

Carl: Graham said it was ok, so go ahead.
David: yeah, well... Graham is an idiot, so I can't trust him.
Graham: ouch, but not really, because I agree that I'm an idiot.

... ok, maybe it wasn't as funny as I thought it was initially.
[which just lends further credence to my idiot-ness]

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]