On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Pierre Gaston <pierre.gas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:42 PM, lolilolicon <loliloli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Linda Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote: >> > lolilolicon wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't expect more than a dozen who rely on this... but bash >> >> programmers can be quite the perverts, so... >> >> >> > >> > Personally I find those who don't read the man page, and then claim that >> > documented >> > behavior is a "bug" are the real "perverts". They expect documented >> > behavior to work >> > some way other than is documented... How is that not perverted? >> >> You're arguing "like a girl". I didn't say the documented behavior was a > > > uh? really? > Please go away, it's already bad enough you are discussing things you don't > fully understand without being sexist on top of that.
Isn't the whole point of discussing better understanding? If you have to fully understand a thing to be allowed to discuss it, then there will be no discussion allowed. You're too easily stoked. Please don't be so sensitive. Notice the double quotes? I'm using the stereotype as a shorthand. Stereotypes exist and are widely understood, much like idioms. In any event, this is but irrelevant to the discussion. Do not seize the red herring.
