[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

 Anthony> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:21:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> 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. 

 Anthony> No, Manoj, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe it'd be
 Anthony> convenient if it were because that's something easy to
 Anthony> disagree with, but it's not. Let's look at the subject shall
 Anthony> we: "All vi and clone[s] to be removed from unstable". That
 Anthony> is idiocy.

	No. That is improbable enough to be funny. It takes a tongue
 in cheek swipe at the mother of all geeky religious wars, that you
 are too bured out from fighting your holy wars to even notice. 

 Anthony> I've seen enough stupid ideas proposed, that
 Anthony> they're not remotely funny anymore, whether it's proposed
 Anthony> seriously, or gratuitiously.

	As I said. You are too burned out to see any humour in things

 Anthony> I'm sure others aren't, but I am, and since that message was
 Anthony> intended to convince me of something, it might have been an
 Anthony> idea to take that into account, no?

	Take what into account? That you are too jaded for norms of
 humour to apply to you? I beg your pardon. 

 Anthony> But no, clearly it's not that I'm merely fed up with hearing
 Anthony> stupid ideas, it's that I have never had any idea what a
 Anthony> "joke" is my entire life.

	I take your word for the fact that you may have a sense of
 humour away from Debian.

 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? 

 Anthony> So basically, your answer is "no" ?

	You can't even read? I have to really really pound into your
 head that the mesage was ironical? 

 Anthony> I wonder if anyone's ever had the guts to say "yes" to a
 Anthony> question that begins "Do you have the intellectual honesty
 Anthony> to admit ...".

	If you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that you
 asked a loaded question ... Well, in that case; Do you, Sir, have the
 intellectual honesty to admit you beat your wife?

	Oops. I forgot the bit about a sense of humour and perhaps an
 ability to see beyond the surface of a message.  In case you haven't
 twigged on to it, I found your question not quite worthy of a direct

 >> a) and b) -- the message said that it was not really a joint
 >> message (draft or otherwise) in so many words.

 Anthony> If this is the case, it's not an example of anything you
 Anthony> consider bad and thus it's completely irrelevant to the
 Anthony> point you're trying to "prove", isn't it?

	I see I have to really dot the i's and cross the t's. The
 message proved the point --- even when the message said it was not
 really a draft joint message, the release manager comes all over in a
 huff about the message.

	Heh. So a draft joint message, even an obviously fake one,
 carries an impact from the implication that the supposed co-authors
 were somehow involved. 

 >> Good Day, Sir. 
 >> I believe we are done.

 Anthony> So, you'd say that "insult whoever you disagree with, and
 Anthony> declare the thread over" is a good way of dealing with
 Anthony> disputes amongst developers?

	No. You were the one throwing words like moron around. Me, I
 try not to label people unless as a reaction.

 Anthony> It'd be really nice if people didn't follow this pattern:

 Anthony> 	* I believe doing <foo> is bad.
 Anthony> 	* Other people don't seem to realise this self-evident truth.
 Anthony> 	* Therefore I will do <foo>.

	Or pretend to do foo, to show people that actually doing foo
 would be a bad thing. I do too wish one did not have to weild such a
 blunt intellectual weapon, but one can't have everything.

	You can't go about lambasting people, and calling them morons,
 and expect them to cower from the almighty release manager all the

 UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20
 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). Andy Tannenbaum
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: