On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:32:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> I'll ask again: is that the rule you would rather? That
> Anthony> you're allowed to duplicate any token of disrespect at the
> Anthony> same level -- if someone calls you names, you can call them
> Anthony> names back; if someone questions your ancestry, you can do
> Anthony> the same to them? Or do you have some other general rule in
> Anthony> mind?
> This is the paragraph that actually prompted me to reply. I
> find your technique masterful --
Obviously. So, instead of being so worried about techniques, why don't you
just answer the question? Is the above the rule that you'd rather, or do
you think have an arms race of rudeness isn't such a great idea either?
Presumably you don't think you should be polite to everyone no matter
the circumstances, since, again, you haven't been particularly reticent
to focus on other people's foibles whether directly or not.
> first call people names, and come
> back repeatedly to harangue them for daring to descend to the nadirs
> you plumb.
And yet you obviously think there's something outrageously offensive
about *you* being called an idiot. How do you reconcile those opinions?
Personally, I'd rather people have a slightly thicker skin than you've
demonstrated -- or at least to act like they do [0] -- and be able to cope
with being called an idiot, and get on with improving Debian anyway. I
don't think it's much to ask: did you see Rusty throw a tantrum when
Linus gave him a black star for stupidity, or did you see either Linus
or Rusty become particularly circumspect in their future dealings with
each other? Is tiptoeing around other people's feelings lest they have
a fit of pique really the best way of dealing with problems, especially
technical ones? Is it impossible for you to ignore insults and reply to
substantial questions, rather than the reverse? Don't you think that at
least *aiming* to do that would be more productive?
But perhaps people find this an unreasonable expectation in Debian today?
And, again, calling you an idiot is hardly "plumbing the nadirs" of
rudeness. What's with the hysterics?
> Anthony> Or are you just happy to have an excuse to vent your spleen,
> Anthony> and aren't particularly worried about the whys and
> Anthony> wherefores?
> Well, how would _you_ respond to the selfsame question?
If I weren't worried about the whys and wherefores I wouldn't be bothering
to ask all those questions you keep ignoring.
> Anthony> You're doing an amazing job at avoiding answering any
> Anthony> questions that might move the discussion forward. Is that
> This discussion is dead. It is merely a pathetic circus
> sideshow; and at this point, on this topic, I do not think you
> deserve an response anymore. Take that how you will.
You've said that before, but you keep responding anyway. It'd be helpful
if you tried responding by _answering the questions_ for a change.
> Anthony> the problem here? That you're so terrified of me, that even
> Anthony> just calling you an idiot means you start panicing and can't
> Anthony> control yourself enough to avoid insulting me in turn? It'd
> Ah, yes. Quite so. I am in deep, abject, panic. Picture mo
> cowering under the sofa.
That sounds like sarcasm, should I take it seriously anyway? You're
welcome to reply privately if it is the case and you don't overly want
to talk about it publically. I still find it hard to understand why
you'd be afraid of disagreeing with anyone on a mailing list.
> This discussion is ended.
You've said that before, too.
Cheers,
aj
[0] And for anyone still playing along at home, one of the easiest ways to
fake having a thick skin is to just delay your responses for a day
or two.
--
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:
pgpRqZF9iL8Yz.pgp
Description: PGP signature