Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:51:50 +0200, Marek Habersack <grendel@debian.org> said:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:25:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava
> scribbled: [snip]
>> >> You may be comfortable with how lazy and apathetic some voters
>> >> are, but do not lay the blame on other people (whine "the title
>> >> was just wrong" whine "they made me not pay attention" whine
>> >> "the dog ate my ballot")
>>
>> > I wanted to stay away from this "discussion", but I just have to
>> > ask. What gives YOU, Manoj, the right to judge others and offend
>> > them? Was there a GR to that effect or something? I think you owe
>>
>> When people tell me that the title I chose for the ballot was
>> "misleading", I get the right to offend them right back.
> Yes, you have that right but only if you direct the offence right at
> them, and not address it to enigmatic "all" or "them" - this is
> unacceptable, especially from a person who is wearing an authority
> hat.
>> Mislead \Mis*lead"\ (m[i^]s*l[=e]d"), v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Misled}
>> (m[i^]s*l[e^]d"); p. pr. & vb. n. {Misleading}.]
>> [AS. misl[=ae]dan. See {Mis-}, and {Lead} to conduct.] To lead
>> into a wrong way or path; to lead astray; to guide into error; to
>> cause to mistake; to deceive. [1913 Webster]
>>
>> And how else would you characterize people who ignore a message
>> sent to them thrice that showed exactly what was being proposed to
>> be new SC, and then turn around an whine that they did not know
>> what the changes proposed were, and that the title selected by the
>> secretary was deceiving?
> Again, call them whatever you want, but name them - do not put
> everybody in the same bag. Offend Joe Doe, so he can fight back -
> contrary to beliefs of some, people are not cattle and should not be
> treated as such.
Everyone is not in the same bag. Only people too lazy-assed
and apathetic to read the ballots sent to them thrice and who further
whine about it being "misleading" are the people I am calling
lazy-assed apathetic whiners.
>> > Was there a GR to that effect or something?
>>
>> Unlike some, I can think on my own; I do not need a GR or aj to
>> tell me how to proceed or what I should do.
> Sure, but keep in mind that others can think on their own too.
So why did you ask if there was a GR that I used to determine
what I can say? Doesn't sound much like someone who can think on
their own, if they go looking at GR's as a basis of other peoples
actions.
>> > I think you owe those who you're offending. and your enigmatic
>> > "they" can apply to every one of us (and yes, I voted already) so
>> > you better contend yourself and watch your mouth, ok?
>>
>> Heh. And now you are the official mouth-watcher, eh? Shut the
> No, I'm not. But I'm not calling ALL DDs idiots, lazy bums and
> whatnot. I called names, I offended people, but I have always
> directed that at a concrete person (I once even sent a private mail
> to John Goerzen full of invectives, which I'm not necessarily proud
> of now :>). Again, I'm not saying you cannot use offensive words,
> call names etc. - you can do it all the time and as often as you
> want, but do not ever offend everybody without exceptions. If you do
> that, you don't deserve to be part of any community (which I'm sure
> isn't true).
I am not offending any non-lazy-assed-non-whiners out
there. Or can't you read?
>> fuck up. How's that?
>
> Wipe the foam off your face, sit back and read again what I wrote,
> ok? At least now you directed the 'shut the fuck up' at a concrete
> person, who can say - shut the fuck up yourself and get a grip,
> dude. Got the concept now?
I still am telling all them lazy-assed apathetic whiners that
they need to shut up about blaming their lack of due diligence to
some one deliberately deceiving them into their inaction.
>>
>> > If somebody resorts to calling names and and offence, it means
>> > that person doesn't really have other arguments to support their
>> > stance.
>>
>> *Shrug*. How you take my opinions is entirely up to you. But
> See, that attitude means you don't give a flying fuck about
> communication.
I don't really give a shit about how nice I am to people who
start off by insulting me, no.
> What you wrote, shows that you want to get your
> point across, and that is it.
That, BTW, is what communication is all about. Look it up.
[a whole lot of confused trivia snipped]
manoj
--
The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard
work. Herbert V. Prochnow
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: