Drop Gwibber from default install
jordon at envygeeks.com
Sun Mar 11 22:19:04 UTC 2012
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Rodney Dawes
<rodney.dawes at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 15:37 -0500, Bedwell, Jordon wrote:
>> I don't need to troll Canonical, you lot do just fine at that by
>> yourselves. But I'll leave it to a Canonical employee to assume that
>> everybody who disagrees must be a troll and therefore is one by
>> default because they are blunt and don't sprinkle love and care all
>> over their statements as if it's a new born baby.
> No, I think you're a troll, because you aren't being blunt, but rather
> are replying to a thread with a sense of self-righteousness and
> self-entitlement; only because someone replied to it from a
> canonical.com address; so that you can rant about a completely unrelated
> project to which the original message in the thread is about. Your
> replies fit the exact behavior of trolling. Had I sent the *exact* same
> message as my original reply to the original repost, from any of my
> other addresses, you would not have even replied. The fact you mentioned
> Canonical at all, clearly stated your intent was to troll the thread.
Self-righteousness eh? Self-entitlement eh? So everybody who puts up a
fight must be that is what you're implying? Everybody who rants must
be that eh? It was related and was used as a point in the case. Too
short-sighted and ignorant to see it. I'm sure you would be a great
resource on what a troll is. No, I would have still replied so don't
confuse me with somebody who cares who you are (which is a nobody to
me -- and yes, I do reply to nobodies -- just another Canonical
employee) or somebody who discriminates based on email. I would have
just modified it a bit not to be so direct but a little more indirect.
So, now if you mention a company you must also be a troll? First of
all, don't assume what I would have or have not done. Your assumption
and ignorant diagnosis of what a person MUST be intrigues me too. I
don't care who you are I just happened to notice. I would have still
> And again, because it obviously wasn't clear the first time:
> Everyone who works at Canonical does not work on the Design team, or
> the Unity team, or the same team, whatever team you are trying to vent
> your frustration about. If you do wish to discuss specific concerns with
> the Design team about Unity, then there is a mailing list for that. It
> is called "unity-design" in fact.
Unless it wasn't obviously clear the first time, I don't care if you
are or aren't apart of that Canonical team. You confuse a rant with
frustration, I have no frustration with Ubuntu. If I had frustration
with Ubuntu I would take a shot every chance I get, but alas I do not.
Perhaps I should so that I could fulfill the role you have given me.
> Also, for the record, Gwibber is not a Canonical project, since you
> seem to be assuming it is.
No, again you are assuming. Unable to follow the entire argument as a
whole. Nice to know you can jump into my head and gather incorrect
> So please stop making poor assumptions
Dear Pot, I am the kettle and this letter is to inform you that you
are also black.
P.S. This is my last reply because I do not want to derail this thread
anymore then I have. Take it to a private email if you want to
continue this game otherwise I'll ignore anymore public replies
directed to me in public from you.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss