On Thursday 01 March 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:20:24PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 March 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 01 mars 2007 à 14:33 +0100, Eduard Bloch a écrit :
> > > > > I'm not the one who said maintainers don't admit they need help.
> > > >
> > > > And I am not the one who said that Mozilla/KDE/GNOME have enough
> > > > manpower.
> > >
> > > Who said that?
> > >
> > > > Don't put words into my mouth.
> > >
> > > How about these words:
> > > And how do you help a maintainer that does not admit that he
> > > needs help?
> > >
> > > Are they yours, or not? If not, you should consider signing your
> > > emails, as someone is trying to fake you on mailing lists.
> >
> > flaw in your logic:
> >
> > the quoted part does not say maintainers have enough manpower,
> > it only says that they haven't expressed the need for more manpower,or
> > at least not in a forum followed by the potential helper.
>
> No it says that they refuse to acknowledge they need help, which they
> did many times. Maybe my english is flawed, but "to not admit sth"
> implicates active denial in my understanding.
From gcide:
Admit \Ad*mit"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Admitted; p. pr. & vb. n.
Admitting.] [OE. amitten, L. admittere, admissum; ad +
mittere to send: cf. F. admettre, OF. admettre, OF. ametre.
See Missile.]
4. To concede as true; to acknowledge or assent to, as an
allegation which it is impossible to deny; to own or
confess; as, the argument or fact is admitted; he admitted
his guilt.
[1913 Webster]
or in other words an admission is an explissive confirmation of a fact. Not
giving explissive confirmation (that he knows of) does not imply denial.
(it helps if you think of the word in a non-courtroom setting;
e.g. a reporter asks if it's true that X, if you reply 'no comment' you've
not admitted X is true, but neither have you said X is false)
> As a member of such teams, and co-issuer of help requests statements on
> user lists (debian-kde@) I did felt quite itched by Eduard statement.
I can see how if you read it that way...
being an optimist, I choose to always interpret statements in the
non-offensive interpretation even when that interpretation is non-obvious.
That way I both don't feel offended, and I avoid unnecessary bad feelings
when no offense was intended.
On the other hand I find that when offense was intended, taking the positive
interpretation, really annoys those trying to offend (and doing so without
me having to descend to flaming back :)
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
Attachment:
pgpLyTessgCco.pgp
Description: PGP signature