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

Re: Pledge To Killfile a person

Sigh.  I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
explanation at length.

Andrew Suffield writes:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:08:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>> >  My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks
>> >  otherwise to present evidence. I sign almost all my outgoing mails;
>> >  this should be easy, if it were true. Find mails from me that "are
>> >  little more than provocations, put-downs, and trolls". Not ones where
>> >  people have interpreted it that way and I've either told them they're
>> >  wrong or ignored them. Ones where it's actually true. Post references
>> >  to this thread. See how many you *actually* get, out of the number of
>> >  mails I send.
>> You asked, and so a little bit of Googling produces these:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg01598.html
> Looks like a perfectly justified response to me. I don't see how that
> could be classified as 'provocation' or 'troll', because in no sense
> did it encourage more discussion - it was quite clearly a statement
> that he was being ignored because he was just trying to start an
> argument. I suppose you could claim it was a 'put-down', but I claim
> it is a factually accurate description of the parent mail and I
> challenge anybody to prove otherwise.

This is an example of one of the significant limitations (perhaps
good, perhaps not) in Debian's current culture: A lot of people think
rudeness is excused -- and not just excusable -- when it saves them
future effort.  The parent mail is not clearly a troll to me, and I
think it is preposterous to assume something is a troll until proven

>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00166.html
> I can see nothing in this mail that could be even remotely like
> that. Explain your claim.

It was counterproductive in that it did not advance any discussion.
It was hypocritical in that it accused unspecified people of being
trolls, while complaining that *they* were resisting efforts to build
consensus.  Insults never build consensus: even when they drive away
individuals who disagree, they also splinter the consensus.

>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00036.html
> And again.

It's an appeal to accept your authority on whether someone is a troll.
In the absense of supporting evidence, it's a put-down and simple

>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/04/msg00248.html
> A restatement of what other people had previously said, and I still
> see no way you can classify this as "little more than provocations,
> put-downs, and trolls".

An explanation of *why* telling users that GFDL docs moved to non-free
is not "particularly important" would be useful, since your message is
otherwise an out-of-hand dismissal of the idea.  Likewise, insulting
the survey without even one example is again put-down and provocation.
Perhaps "constructive criticism" is an American peculiarity.

>> perhaps http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00378.html
>> (which I would call devoid of useful information but heavy in insults)
> Insults? WTF? Precise quoting and explanations please, I see none here.

One insult is the reference to "a small group running around
advocating knowingly putting non-free stuff into main", which is a
serious charge.  You were right that it would be absurd, but without
support, it looks suspiciously like a strawman.

Another implied insult is the distinction between the frequent posters
to debian-legal: You are there because you send lots of short email,
and others who are there are in your killfile.  The only reason I see
to mention that is to sugggest that they are not worth counting.

Michael Poole

Reply to: