Re: [dev] dwm only?

> Did I missed something?!
>
> 'dwm only?' subject is about splitting lists or getting things
> reverted or whatever you call it, I am not that informed about mailing
> list options and that's best I could do to define what I would like to
> see. If there is better way to phrase what I already stated and better
> address than creating new subject on mailing list please be my guest to
> do that -- English is not my primary language.

You original question was just about not receiving wmii related e-mails.
I was suggesting creating a topic as an actual complaint against the
merger of the two mailing lists.

> My view on wmii is exactly the same as wmii user can see dwm, as
> something too strange and out of interest. I do respect wmii but don't
> care about it and you also agreed that 'wmii and dwm very obviously
> cater to different people'. My line was just illustration how different
> (unmixable?) they are.

Ah, I see. However, the placement, harshness and wording of the line did
not seem to communicate that you were just giving an example. It seemed
more like a spiteful insult to the opposite party since they dared to
get their posts on your mailing list. It's a crude way of communicating
your point but I see what you were trying to do.

> So everybody sorry if I was rude but I still can't understand what I
> did wrong? 'Stop whining' is rude on any language.

It was rude which is why I said I didn't necessarily agree with him.
However, your post also appeared rude because of your wmii/dwm comment
and after all of the arguing on the board during the past few days I was
getting tired of people trying to start arguments as your post appeared
to be trying to do.

> Dusan

Thanks for the reply,
Thomas

> On Sun, 24 May 2009 12:29:12 -0400
> Thomas Gallen <kaori.hinata_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't necessarily agree with Uriel's solution but your tone is no
> > less rude and point no more correct. The wmii mailing list was a
> > mailing list for wmii, the dwm mailing list was a mailing list for
> > dwm, NEITHER of them were the Slashdot RSS feed. Regardless of how
> > "interesting" you thought the topics were (and I admit I liked a few
> > of them). Placing them on either of those lists is unnecessary and
> > disruptiive and I think we need a separate mailing list for topics
> > like those.
> >
> > Ever since the list merger the sheer amount of flaming, elitism and
> > arguments has increased exponentially and it's disgusting to have to
> > watch. Your line on wmii and dwm being the latest example. wmii and
> > dwm very obviously cater to different people so arguing about it is a
> > stupid thing to do and yet you voluntarily did just that. You make
> > your views abundantly clear so why don't you voice your concerns to
> > the people in charge instead of taking it out on other people?
> >
> > If you want to start a topic regarding splitting the lists again (or
> > labelling them differently) I would gladly participate as that seems
> > to be a topic on which we both agree.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 05:44:54PM +0200, Dusan wrote:
> > > Sorry but you are not right, not to mention rude response. Dwm list
> > > has plenty of _interesting_ topics related to dwm or any other
> > > minimal suckless project. It is fantastic way to get informed about
> > > other minimal projects and better ways to do something. Wmii is
> > > bloatware for me or at least topic that has nothing common with
> > > dwm. Correct me if I am wrong. As much as I am thrilled to read
> > > about what is the best way to describe shortcut in wmii manual, I
> > > should not be forced to read that except if I choose to do so. Same
> > > as would make no sense to mix dwm and gnome mailing lists make no
> > > sense to mix dwm and wmii mailing lists.
> > >
> > > Dusan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:15:17 +0200
> > > Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stop whining, the dwm list had tons of non-dwm chatter, if you
> > > > are not interested in one thread, press the delete button.
> > > >
> > > > uriel
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Benjamin Conner
> > > > <tommydabomby_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Why not to maintain dwm list and redirect its content to dev
> > > > >> list?
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a great idea!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, pmarin <pacogeek_AT_gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why not to maintain dwm list and redirect its content to dev
> > > > >> list?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Conner
> > > > >> <tommydabomby_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > I'd like to know this too.  I would only like dwm ones like
> > > > >> > the lists used
> > > > >> > to be.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Dusan <ef_dva_AT_yahoo.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Is there a way to get only dwm related emails? Since lists
> > > > >> >> are merged I get bunch of wmii related ones and frankly I
> > > > >> >> don't need them at all.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Sun May 24 2009 - 17:09:18 UTC