On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:18:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:27PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: > > > > many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, > > > > and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. > > > Speaking of antagonistic... > > Huh? > > "Kenneth's responses have ranged from being dismissive to hostile." > > That would be antagonistic in that: > > * it makes the problem overly personal -- I'd be making you, personally, > out to be the problem rather than saying your arguments or claims are > wrong and should be abandoned; > > * it's overly critical -- portions of your responses might have been > dismissive or the OpenSolaris guys' work, and it might've been > possible to interpret your responses in a hostile manner, but that > doesn't mean such an interpretation is correct or the most important > aspect of your mails; > > * it's also blatantly dishonest -- not all of your mails have been > dismissive to hostile. > > The latter's the case for Erast too -- take [0] eg, which doesn't seem > remotely antagonistic, let alone showing a complete disregard for what > Debian is all about. Well, yes, but my statement wasn't that broadly worded - note I said "many of Erast's responses" not just "Erast's responses". Perhaps the word "many" is an overly broad characterization, but there were quite a few, especially in the part of the thread I originally replied to (which is why I replied to him in the first place). Anyway, I don't feel we need to go into this any deeper. I understand the point you're trying to make. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature