Well I'm progressing -slowly

Jesse Phillips jessekphillips at gmail.com
Mon Feb 18 14:24:52 PST 2008

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:22:45 -0500, Ty Tower wrote:

> Jesse I'll have a look at what you have said however plaease take note -
> this is exactly what I am saying ;  You post without thinking
> As I am finding ,understanding and correcting problems in my command
> line the compiler is getting further and further through before throwing
> in the towel.  The output therefore changes. I beleive I am now on the
> last of it and the next post offers me a course of investigation whereas
> your post wants to knock -as have most of your posts.

I am confused on your accusation here, are you saying that my posts have 
no thought because I don't read your posts? If that is your claim it is a 
lie, as I have read ever post of yours and every post replying to your 
posts. Not only that, but I have compared my own knowledge with those 
responses to see if anything needed corrected or added. I have even taken 
time to see how accurate your accusations have been. I feel I have put a 
lot of thought into my posts.

As stated before, your last posted problem is not a step forward. Running 
into an inability find a needed linked file is at the first stages of 
linking. Your other problems had already gone past this stage and run 
into duplicate definitions.

The last think you bring up is that most of my posts have been to "knock" 
yours. This first group has been purely help:





Then we have the group of informative and "knocking," the last on 
starting with help, but mostly explaining way we made suggestions, after 
having been accused of not putting thoughts into our posts.



This final group has provided you with no help, but instead trying to 
demonstrate that your frustration with our help has been related own 
misunderstanding of the problem and not ours.


And of course this Current post.

These post have come about not because of your still needing help, or 
creating new problems, but because of your continued hostility to those 
that have already provided you with help. As I do not want to be accused 
of not thinking I will have to explain way said line is hostile: 

"Probably any one of you could have explained this had you trie a little 
harder ."

You say we just needed to try a little harder. This would suggest that if 
we looked at the output from your command we could have explained why you 
might have been missing -lm. This conclusion is supported by the added:

"Now without all the other extraneous b/s of versions etc , surely 
someone can suggest why this might be."

Now had you politely return here with this new problem requesting help, I 
would have seen no reason to have corrected you incorrect accusation. I 
set for to correct this by providing all of the output you gave us, to 
show you that at no point did a problem with -lm show up. I ask how does 
that not show thought?

In final hopes of resolution, you will note that only with this post have 
I hit the 50/50 mark for hostile postings. I suppose to round this off as 
hostile, I could through in the hostile postings you have had, but I did 
not see that as the purpose of this posting.

More information about the Digitalmars-d-dwt mailing list