Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:46:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:
> Matt> I read quite well, thank you. Such personal attacks would not seem to fit
> Matt> with your lofty philosophy of elevating social norms.
>
> Then the only explanation is that you do not ken the
> distinction between goals and dependencies. Is that not worse?
This is a fallacious assertion. That is far from the only explanation. In
fact, I was asserting that your behaviour suggested such a dependency. Your
statements do not at all strike me as efforts to promote peace and
understanding, but rather as negative reactions to what you perceive as
offensive behaviour by others.
> Matt> To respond in kind, you should really learn how to construct sentences.
>
> Umm. elucidate.
"having attaining" is not valid syntax.
> Matt> If you did not ever expect to reap any benefit from your
> Matt> "journey", then I suppose it would be a truly altruistic act,
> Matt> and you a being of rare character. But if I may quote you
> Matt> again:
>
> Read what I said what the Geeta said. And how you deduce it is
> altruistic is beyond me, and, beyond logic. Letting the thought of
> the reaping benefits distract you from following your credo does not
> imply selfishness. It implies potential ineptitude.
Read what you wrote yourself. How you deduce it has anything to do with the
text you quoted from the Geeta is beyond me, and beyond logic.
Again: "Perhaps[...]if I can change social norms of conduct so that I would
nto[sic] be hurt in the future?" The phrase "so that" implies a clear
intention of reaping personal benefit, and not "let[ting] the fruits and
consequences[...]fall where they will". I cannot see how you profess to
follow this philosophy in your life, even if you believe that you are doing
what is right.
> Matt> ...it certainly sounds as if you expect personal benefit.
>
> Of course the desired goal is personal
> benefit. Jesus. Depending on it is never implied. If you still do
> not see how they are separate, well, I think we are done. My
> commiserations also go with you.
You are using two unrelated arguments to justify one another: what you said,
and what you quoted from a religious text. This is not logically valid.
> Matt> It would be nice if you did not needlessly provoke me, as part
> Matt> of your apparent personal conflict with Branden Robinson,
> Matt> simply because I sent a followup to one of his messages.
> Matt> However, I will survive it, and I do not expect this to change.
>
> I did not provike you,except to correct a basic error in logic
> about a posting of mine. Goal != dependency, if I may reiterate.
If I may reiterate:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:57:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:
>
> Matt> Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300
> Matt> packages? It'd take MONTHS to make up the difference, and
> Matt> meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing to SLACKWARE.
>
> Matt> And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE?
>
> I can see you totally miss the point of the non-free GR.
You responded to a sarcastic jest, about the barely significant number of
packages in non-free compared to the rate at which new software enters
Debian, and the irrational fear (held by some in the project) of lost
popularity of the distribution, and accused me of not understanding a simple
proposal on a barely related topic (both related to the "non-free" archive).
There is little doubt in my mind that this outburst arose from your personal
opinions of Branden Robinson, which have apparently spread to me on the
basis of my continuation in a similar vein of humour.
> Matt> In judgement of those who engage in ridicule on this mailing
> Matt> list, I do not believe that you have ground to stand on.
>
> Heck, I adapt to the tactics people use. (Except I continue to
> believe in logic)
You adapt to the tactics people use by using them yourself while engaging in
judgement of them. That is hypocrisy, not logic.
> Matt> Appeal to popularity, overgeneralization, and hyperbole all in
> Matt> one sentence, as well as misstating my position. This is a
> Matt> notable feat of non-argument.
>
> You can't seem to distinguish between a goal and a dependency,
> and yes, I did resort to extreme example in an attempt to deomstrate
> the distinction. Since it has been lost on you, I admit to the
> inefficacy of my message.
But you do not admit that when people do not conform to your desired
standards of behaviour, you seem to frequently react irrationally. So, I
might say that you are "dependent" on such behaviour to maintain your
composure. Your "goal" may be to convince these people to behave
differently, but the display gives the impression that you cannot reasonably
cope with it.
> Matt> If your interest is in goals that you will never achieve, then
>
> Not never achive. May never achieve. There is a distinction,
> though it may be too fine for you to follow, given this thread.
"Maybe you're dumb. Ha-ha. Ha-ha."
--
- mdz
Reply to: