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

Re: All vi and clone to be removed from unstable

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 02:09:44AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 	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. 

Well, I'm sorry, but you're still an idiot. If you don't want me fighting
holy wars like, say, getting the release out, then well, you probably
shouldn't be here. If you're not willing to make things easier for me so I
don't get so burnt out -- by, eg, taking over managing which bugs should
be release critical as part of your position as policy editor -- you
should at least be willing to accept the consequences with a little grace.

>  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
>  technical. 

Another thing that would be nice: idiots like yourself to stop pretending
they know my mind better than I do. I'm sorry, but you degree in pop
psychology not withstanding, you don't.

>  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? 

How about you spend a few minutes not being ironic, not being "funny",
not being sarcastic or insulting, not being rhetorical, and just politely
and briefly explaining what you think is wrong?

>  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 ...

Uh, I realise what I wrote wasn't incredibly blatant, but isn't that
effectively what I just did?

Nevertheless, if you're going to do an analogy to make your point clearer,
you need to make sure that you're not changing anything particularly
fundamental. You changed at least three things in your example:

	* Unlike Ian, *you* don't like the proposal you made
	* Unlike Ian, you don't have any reason to believe I would
	  support it, even in principle
	* Unlike Ian, your intent, indeed the entire point of your
	  example, was to have people assume that I'd supported it

all of which seem like perfectly good reasons to have not worried about
Ian's phrasing. Given your case though, I wouldn't expect anyone to
think I had been making the proposal since it's not one that anyone has
any reason to make in the first place, and I wouldn't expect anyone to
treat it as a minor deal if they did, since your express purpose *was*
to write it in such a way that people would think I'd supported it,
which *is* dishonest.

> 	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
>  response. 

So you'd also add "You are allowed and encouraged to treat people who
disagree with you as beneath you, and unworthy of a response if they
ask difficult questions" ?

>  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 --- 

No, you don't get to act like an idiot then claim that you're not an
idiot because you were only acting.

> 	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. 

No, it does not. It makes you look like an idiot, that's all.

>  >> 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.

Ah, so, to clarify it would be "If anyone treats you with anything
other than perfect respect, you should retaliate in kind to any level
you like, and you may feel free to end the conversation then do whatever
you like." ?

>  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. 

Personally, I think it takes more anti-cluons to know something's bad,
then to pretend to think it's a good thing just to make a point, than
to think it's good in the first place.

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

Who's expecting you to cower? I called you an idiot. That's all. Haven't
you ever been called an idiot? Is it the worst thing that's ever happened
to you? Are you so unable to handle not having my unmitigated respect
at all times, that you're forced to quiver with righteous outrage lest
you shiver with fear?

It's funny how people are so willing to leap into name-calling as soon
as they've got their hands on the "you started it" excuse.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <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.''

Attachment: pgp89NEUtUiYt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: