RE: How to rename file case-sensitive?

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

On 15 August 2007 16:11, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 15 August 2007 15:50, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> 
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Aug 15 00:48, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Hawk wrote:
>>>>>> [disclaimer]
>>>>> [FULL QUOTED!]
>>>> Was that really necessary just to make a fun out of it?
>>> Is quoting ever really necessary?
>>>>> Dang 2! Not *that's* a long sig. I always chuckle at the silly attempt
>>>>> to make this legal statement.
>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2007-08/msg00108.html
>>> Huh? And I'm supposed to do what with this URL?
>> 
>> It's called a 'reference'. You can try things such as 'looking it up'
>> and 'seeing what it says'. It was probably given to you for a reason
>> called 'FYI', and 'because it's directly relevant to what we were just
>> talking about'. 
>> 
>> Earlier you showed us that you don't know how to quote. Now you're
>> showing us that you don't know how to click.
> Again, huh? Called a reference - no it was not called a reference.

  Is English not your first language, by any chance?  I didn't say that anyone
had called it anything on this particular occasion, I said that it *is* called
"a reference", i.e. that is the name for the thing that it is.  In the same
sense that you are still called "Andrew" even when nobody is addressing you.

>  The
> word was not even mentioned. All that was present was a URL. 

  You need everything spelt out for you?  Common sense was all I needed to
figure out what it was about.

> And yes
> smart ass I know how to click, and read for that matter. Do you? Did you
> click and read it? I suspect not.

  Well, then you fail once more.  Of course I clicked and read it.  I also
remembered it, having read it a couple of days ago when it was posted to the
gdb list.

>  Yes it mentioned about disclaimers
> *for some other group* 

  Fail again.  It doesn't say which group it's for, you were inferring
(without evidence) that the group it was posted to is the one and only group
to which it applies.

  The only thing it actually refers to directly is "a casual survey of
sourceware.org email archives"; it will, as it happens, apply to all mailing
lists hosted on sourceware.org.  FYI, sourceware.org is the same system as
cygwin.com and gcc.gnu.org.

> and about some thing to institute a block, etc.
> But it wasn't about this group 

  False inference on your part, as explained above.

> nor about the points I brought up 

  Yes, it wasn't directly about the points you brought up in relation to
disclaimers.  It was however about disclaimers in general and disclaimers and
mailing lists, which were part of the overall topic of the thread.

  It's actually quite common in everyday conversation to include these little
side-issues or 'tangents', as they are often called.

> leading
> me to say "huh" as in *how exactly do you fell that this URL and the
> page it references is relevant to what I was talking about???* Listen if
> you or Corina wishes to be terse and not explain things then expect
> questions.

  PKB.  You complain that it's terse, yet your complaint was itself terse,
vague and underspecified.

> And I do know how to quote too.

  You failed dismally when it came to that post where you quoted the entire
post, headers and all, and the entire disclaimer.  It's no good just sitting
around knowing how to do something in the privacy of your own head, you need
to actually put it into practice in reality as well.

>> You're not batting well today.
> And you're batting below me. Where does that put you?

  How do you work that out?  I haven't messed up.  You did twice.  And that
was before you even came out with this last reply, with its specious semantic
game-playing about the meaning of the word 'called' and its false inferences
and PKB.

  While we're at it, I'll also see your grocer's apostrophe ("company's still
force you to") and raise you one fictitious bogolegal argument ("you putting
out information on the public internet is akin to shouting in the park and you
can't then attempt to prohibit anybody that hears/sees your public ramblings")
which ignores the basic reality of the existence of copyright and from that
point goes on to skate over a huge and complex issue in favour of the
blatantly fallacious over-simplification "anything I hear or see I am allowed
to copy and republish".

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....