FW: [texhax] Bilbliography problem

[Philip G. Ratcliffe]

Oops, I forgot to do a REPLY TO ALL on this one.  Apologies to Martin for
the duplication.

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip G. Ratcliffe [mailto:philipratcliffe at tiscali.it]
Sent: 08 November 2005 19:20
To: Martin Schroder
Subject: RE: [texhax] Bilbliography problem


> On 2005-11-08 07:38:31 +0000, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> > > No, back to the fairness matter: Morten, you are narrowing
> > > the space of adequate diagnoses down very much, making
> > > use of specific information from Zak that Robin is not
> > > willing to acknowledge:
> >
> > goodbye, you little toad.
>
> Flaming now?
>
> > i can't continue to read a list that causes me to have to fight my
> > temper just after i've got up in the morning.
>
> Then don't read it in the morning :-)
>
> > this luck person decided he didn't want me on texhax, and has
>
> Calling names now?
>
> > the failed support person.
>
> Yes and no. You rightly pointed out that Zak hasn't provided some
> basic information and pointed him to the FAQ. You should have
> stopped there, till he showed that information.
>
> Please reread the netiquette: If you want to shout at people,
> wait till tomorrow with the answer. And don't write it just after
> getting up.
>
> And don't start flaming or calling names.

I seriously think there some confusion here: it can hardly be said the Robin
got angry or even insulted Zak, the original poster.  To my knowledge, the
first of Robins postings is as follows (I've only removed previous posting):

*****
as i said in reply to this question on comp.text.tex, it's not a good
idea to persist with latex 209 compatibility mode.  make your document
a latex2e one, if at all possible

it's fairly obvious you've got something completely broken up there,
yet you tell us *nothing* about it other than "it doesn't work".

produce a minimal example, and there's a good chance someone will
help.

as i said before:

http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxampl
*****

That's it!  Not at lot of name calling, nor bile, nor choleric, not even
much sarcasm as I can see.  Of course, it may have be that Uwe's crystal
ball allows him to read people's minds and he sensed Robin's irritation, but
then maybe he could have just left it up to Robin's sixth sense to receive
the reprimand.  Indeed, I do believe it is still true that Uwe himself did
not offer any real solution or help to the original poster and merely used
the thread as a vehicle to have a go at Robin in public.

Nuff said, anyway I vote for Robin!

Cheers,  Phil