Re: [spam subject elided] (fwd)
* Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> [181203 23:57]:
> On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:33 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Are you saying that because others have, in the past, resorted to
> > violence that it becomes justifiable?
>
> No, I'm saying lessons learned from History are to always be respected
> and not ignored.
That's not what you wrote. Here it is:
* Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> [181203 15:21]:
> How long should Dave wait out the problem before insulting folks?
======
> [snip] At
> what point should constructive feedback yield to insults, and at what
======
> point should insults yield to violence?
======
>
> If your answer to that last question is "never", then I suggest you
> study some history. ;-)
You asked "should", which is asking what is appropriate. History can
rarely be used to answer that question. And you should never respect
wrong historical choices (for the definition of "respect" meaning
"esteem"). If by "respect" you meant "keep in mind", that has
absolutely nothing to do with "should".
* Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> [181203 23:57]:
> On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:33 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Over an offer to help that was sent to the wrong place and was thus
> > not answered?
>
> Context, it's always important. The offerS have been given by several
> people, over several years, across several methods.
What offers? I have seen very few offers from anyone, and I have been
subscribed to this list for a long time. Can you give a URL from the
archives at lists.debian.org?
> I know Dave, I have
> a reasonable idea of how Dave would have make his first, second, third,
> fourth, fifth, and sixth offers to help. I can also imagine that it
> probably took Dave at least several years, of offering *free* help,
> before he blew a gasket at the continuance of a problem that he is very
> keenly aware of how to solve.
Searching this list's archive specifically for "horsfall", I get 57
matches, 24 that are from him. Of those 24, this is the only other one
related to spam:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-laptop/2018/01/msg00001.html
I didn't know that spamming was allowed on this list; can I spam too?
That doesn't sound like a constructive offer to help. Your "reasonable
idea" of how he would make his first through sixth offers to help does
not match the evidence in the archive.
> I, on a parallel plane, have been
> advocating for improvements, and complaining about the spam problem, for
> several years now too.
How about giving real help instead of complaining?
> I'll make a prediction, nothing will improve and
> obvious spam will still leak through b.d.o.
It appears that you have no idea how much spam is actually being
rejected compared to the very few that actually make it through. You
will never get both 0 false positives and 0 false negatives on any
sizeable mailing list.
Or perhaps you do have an idea, you just have an unrealistic expectation
that _zero_ spam getting through is easily attainable.
> > Sorry, that is just plain wrong.
>
> Which part? The part about context mattering?
Huh? Your irrelevant and unsubstantiated remark about context was in
your reply to that message, not in the message to which that was a
reply. Talk about ignoring context! My comment was given precisely in
context, but I'll copy it here just to try to be clear:
> On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:33 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > Are you saying that because others have, in the past, resorted to
> > violence that it becomes justifiable?
> > Over an offer to help that was sent to the wrong place and was thus
> > not answered?
To rephrase that, your message gave a clear implication that history was
a justification for why "never" was not the correct answer to "at what
point should insults yield to violence?", and I was saying that "never"
is, indeed, the correct answer to that question.
...Marvin
Reply to: