On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:21:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes: > Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Since they are not derived from the one true editor. Apart from > >> being a name calling moron, you have no humour gene. > Anthony> Oddly enough, idiocy within Debian doesn't leave me > Anthony> particularly amused any more, whether it's faked or comes > Anthony> naturally. "Too much of a good thing", and all that. > Odd. Humor. Idiocy. All same. No, Manoj, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe it'd be convenient if it were because that's something easy to disagree with, but it's not. Let's look at the subject shall we: "All vi and clone[s] to be removed from unstable". That is idiocy. I've seen enough stupid ideas proposed, that they're not remotely funny anymore, whether it's proposed seriously, or gratuitiously. I'm sure others aren't, but I am, and since that message was intended to convince me of something, it might have been an idea to take that into account, no? But no, clearly it's not that I'm merely fed up with hearing stupid ideas, it's that I have never had any idea what a "joke" is my entire life. > Anthony> Do you at least have the intellectual honesty to note that > Anthony> your mail differed from Ian's on three grounds: that he was > Anthony> serious about his proposal, that he believed the people who > Anthony> he was proposing jointly issue it would agree with it, and > Anthony> that he had no intention of having anyone assume that the > Anthony> draft was written by anyone other than him? > Intellectual honesty? Do I have to pound you on the head to > drive the first two points across? So basically, your answer is "no" ? I wonder if anyone's ever had the guts to say "yes" to a question that begins "Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit ...". > a) and b) -- the message said that it was not really a joint > message (draft or otherwise) in so many words. If this is the case, it's not an example of anything you consider bad and thus it's completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to "prove", isn't it? > Good Day, Sir. > I believe we are done. So, you'd say that "insult whoever you disagree with, and declare the thread over" is a good way of dealing with disputes amongst developers? It'd be really nice if people didn't follow this pattern: * I believe doing <foo> is bad. * Other people don't seem to realise this self-evident truth. * Therefore I will do <foo>. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature