Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 02:09:44AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> No. That is improbable enough to be funny. It takes a tongue
>> in cheek swipe at the mother of all geeky religious wars, that you
>> are too bured out from fighting your holy wars to even notice.
Anthony> Well, I'm sorry, but you're still an idiot.
I see. So spake the great aj, and it must be so.
Anthony> If you don't want me fighting holy wars like, say, getting
Anthony> the release out, then well, you probably shouldn't be
Anthony> here.
I have no intention of dictating how you manage, or mismanage,
your time. That is entirely up to you.
Anthony> If you're not willing to make things easier for me so I
Anthony> don't get so burnt out -- by, eg, taking over managing which
Anthony> bugs should be release critical as part of your position as
Anthony> policy editor -- you should at least be willing to accept
Anthony> the consequences with a little grace.
So now we are to walk on egg shells since you have so little
discipline as to not burn out? And I'll happily take over managing
what bugs are release critical. You just have to ask. I assumed, with
everyone else, that that was what a release manager actually did.
Anthony> I've seen enough stupid ideas proposed, that
Anthony> they're not remotely funny anymore, whether it's proposed
Anthony> seriously, or gratuitiously.
>> As I said. You are too burned out to see any humour in things
>> technical.
Anthony> Another thing that would be nice: idiots like yourself to
Ah yes. That again.
Anthony> stop pretending they know my mind better than I do. I'm
Anthony> sorry, but you degree in pop psychology not withstanding,
Anthony> you don't.
Burn out is the most charitable reason I could attribute your
continued tantrums to. However, if you have another reason to ascribe
to your little outbusts, I'd be happy to substitute them in.
Anthony> So basically, your answer is "no" ?
>> You can't even read? I have to really really pound into your
>> head that the mesage was ironical?
Anthony> How about you spend a few minutes not being ironic, not
Anthony> being "funny", not being sarcastic or insulting, not being
Anthony> rhetorical, and just politely and briefly explaining what
Anthony> you think is wrong?
*Sigh*. I'll see if I can do that below.
Anthony> I wonder if anyone's ever had the guts to say "yes" to a
Anthony> question that begins "Do you have the intellectual honesty
Anthony> to admit ...".
>> If you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that you
>> asked a loaded question ...
Anthony> Uh, I realise what I wrote wasn't incredibly blatant, but
Anthony> isn't that effectively what I just did?
No. There are legitimate questions that begin with "Do you
have the intellectual honesty to admit ...".
Anthony> Nevertheless, if you're going to do an analogy to make your
Anthony> point clearer, you need to make sure that you're not
Anthony> changing anything particularly fundamental. You changed at
Anthony> least three things in your example:
Anthony> * Unlike Ian, *you* don't like the proposal you made
Oh, I love the proposal I made, I just admit that it is
a) not practical, since everyone else is not me
b) it is unlikely to be taken seriously by anyone with any shred of
common sense.
Anthony> * Unlike Ian, you don't have any reason to believe I would
Anthony> support it, even in principle
Well, You got me there. But also unlike Ian, the intent of the
message was not to convince you to support it -- the intent was to
demonstrate that calling sometihhng a draft joint or joint draft
message adds legitimacy even to an absurd message.
Anthony> * Unlike Ian, your intent, indeed the entire point of
Anthony> your example, was to have people assume that I'd
Anthony> supported it
Oh, Jesus. I did not think even a chimpanzee would assume you
had supported it -- and yet, show that despite that, the initial
impression was lasting.
I obviously ocerestimated my audience.
Anthony> all of which seem like perfectly good reasons to have not
Anthony> worried about Ian's phrasing.
Wrong on 2.5 of the three counts.
Anthony> Given your case though, I wouldn't expect anyone to think I
Anthony> had been making the proposal since it's not one that anyone
Anthony> has any reason to make in the first place, and I wouldn't
Anthony> expect anyone to treat it as a minor deal if they did, since
Anthony> your express purpose *was* to write it in such a way that
Anthony> people would think I'd supported it, which *is* dishonest.
You are just embarrassing yourself.
>> Oops. I forgot the bit about a sense of humour and perhaps an
>> ability to see beyond the surface of a message. In case you haven't
>> twigged on to it, I found your question not quite worthy of a direct
>> response.
Anthony> So you'd also add "You are allowed and encouraged to treat
Anthony> people who disagree with you as beneath you, and unworthy of
Anthony> a response if they ask difficult questions" ?
Not a difficult question. A question that was beneath
contempt, as an insult to my intelligence, yes. However, given your
email, I percieve I was wrong in my assesment of the situation. I do
apologize, I did not for a moment imagine you could have meant the
question seriously, or you were capable of such a gross
misinterpretation of my mail.
Anthony> If this is the case, it's not an example of anything you
Anthony> consider bad and thus it's completely irrelevant to the
Anthony> point you're trying to "prove", isn't it?
>> I see I have to really dot the i's and cross the t's. The
>> message proved the point ---
Anthony> No, you don't get to act like an idiot then claim that
Anthony> you're not an idiot because you were only acting.
Really, you are merely damaging your side here. Most people
realize when someone says "this appears to be XYZ .. but not really",
that the intent was not to demonstrate that XYZ actually is the
case.
I had assumed most readers of this mailing list could reach an
obvious conclusion. I appear to have been mistaken. Shall I apologize
agin for giving way too much credit?
>> Heh. So a draft joint message, even an obviously fake one,
>> carries an impact from the implication that the supposed co-authors
>> were somehow involved.
Anthony> No, it does not. It makes you look like an idiot, that's all.
This is beginning to be fun. Ought you not be varying the
insult. mixing it up a trifle? Thesauruses help.
>> >> Good Day, Sir.
>> >> I believe we are done.
Anthony> So, you'd say that "insult whoever you disagree with, and
Anthony> declare the thread over" is a good way of dealing with
Anthony> disputes amongst developers?
>> No. You were the one throwing words like moron around. Me, I
>> try not to label people unless as a reaction.
Anthony> Ah, so, to clarify it would be "If anyone treats you with
Anthony> anything other than perfect respect, you should retaliate in
Anthony> kind to any level you like, and you may feel free to end the
Anthony> conversation then do whatever you like." ?
Being called a moron is mere less than perfect respect? I
see. You do realize actions have consequences? That being the RM is
not a perfect shield?
Anthony> It'd be really nice if people didn't follow this pattern:
Anthony> * I believe doing <foo> is bad.
Anthony> * Other people don't seem to realise this self-evident truth.
Anthony> * Therefore I will do <foo>.
>> Or pretend to do foo, to show people that actually doing foo
>> would be a bad thing.
Anthony> Personally, I think it takes more anti-cluons to know
Anthony> something's bad, then to pretend to think it's a good thing
Anthony> just to make a point, than to think it's good in the first
Anthony> place.
Clear as mud.
>> You can't go about lambasting people, and calling them morons,
>> and expect them to cower from the almighty release manager all the
>> time.
Anthony> Who's expecting you to cower? I called you an idiot. That's
Anthony> all. Haven't you ever been called an idiot? Is it the worst
Anthony> thing that's ever happened to you? Are you so unable to
Anthony> handle not having my unmitigated respect at all times, that
Anthony> you're forced to quiver with righteous outrage lest you
Anthony> shiver with fear?
Ooooh, proceless. Umbrage after initiating the descent into
name calling. This is too good ...
Anthony> It's funny how people are so willing to leap into
Anthony> name-calling as soon as they've got their hands on the "you
Anthony> started it" excuse.
Well, I confess, I did get down into the tar pit, didn't I?
More restraint is called for. Yes, indeedy.
Your turn now, unless you manage to realize that apart from
entertaining the bystanders, there is nothing new being said
anymore.
manoj
--
"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can
All Employees do for A Group of Employees." Mike Dennison
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: