On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:04 PM, lolilolicon <loliloli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > It is fully relevant when you use a sexist stereotype as an argument.
