Re: oh no something is definitly wrong adieu debian.
On 8/27/13, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 21:16 +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 8/27/13, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>> > You're free to consider the distros you mentioned as the best distros,
>> > but by doing this you miss a basic approach of FLOSS. There isn't such
>> > as a commercial competition, or radical political model.
>>
>> What you say does not make sense.
>>
>> You are free to ignore most (or all) of what I say, and to make
>> assumptions about things I have supposedly considered or said.
>>
>> Free to do so, but not useful...
>
> What branch of Debian do you recommend to contribute in development of
> important Linux userspace projects?
Ralph, you are quite disrespectful.
I ask you genuine question, speak from my heart on matters. You ignore
nearly everything I say and say something mostly unrelated. More than
that, you ask a question whilst waving a hand to sweep aside my
questions to you.
Before, I asked you a question I am interested in hearing your answer.
You completely ignored my question, and speak to my considerations and
made assumptions which are unfounded.
Again, same thing.
Finally (above), I point out to you that something you said (as again
before), is just not making sense.
You made no effort to explain (read again, your second sentence at
top, and see for you it is maybe an ambiguity, but for me, I actually
could not understand what you tried to say.
And again, you ignore what I say, that I do not understand ("what you
say does not make sense"),
and now, after ignoring me 3 times, you ask a genuine question of me?
Do you see Ralph that, to me, you are coming across as disrespectful ?
> I explained that you can't do that, if you experience a dependency hell
> or an unstable environment. To contribute that way users and developers
> need stable up-to-date releases of software + sometimes newer releases
> than the current stable releases. Debian doesn't provide a stable branch
> that is up-to-date, in sync with stable releases from upstream, even the
> unstable branches of Debian don't provide this.
Completely ignoring what I said, going to pure technical conversation now!
> Wouldn't you call this a drawback for the evolution of Linux, while it
> has less, if any advantages to go this way?
Now going to strawman (Ralph creates his straw argument to shoot it
down, pretending he shoots someone but himself), nothing about what I
said!
Ralph, you are competant at ignoring salient points and responses!
Also, you are competant at raising strawmen!
Also, your are inequitable in your conversational behaviour! (Ignore
my repeated question and many things, then ask me another question;
then do this all again.)
Also, you are competant at bold assertions (false bold assertions,
true bold assertions, and whatever inbetween)!
Also, you are competant at completely ignoring/sweeping away entire
halves of sequential communication when it does not suit nor interest
you.
Also, you are competant at ignoring genuine questions.
Ralph, you are entirely competant in using these above and more techniques,
to defend your - existential, - "politically correct", - utilitarian
metric, , , belief system,
to essentially bludgeon the conversation.
I can easily go to technical conversation with you. In the past I
have. With others I have.
But Ralph can you participate (substantially) in a conversation which
goes beyond mere technical?
Does the concept of higher aspiration
[upset|offend|disgust|challenge|affront] you?
(Now I am again asking you genuine questions, but you have shown
persistent, repeated disregard for my questions in the multiple
earlier parts of this conversation, so I wonder, am I wasting my time
even posing such questions to you.)
Ralph when you ignore my questions and ignore what I say,
and then you continue as though a big part of the conversation (my
half) never happened,
then you are being disrespectful, and stubborn, and biased,
and you fail to acknowledge my position.
It is funny: you pretend to dislike "religious" communication
(about "my OS is better, my metric is most important")
but you "religiously" ignore those parts of my opinion that you don't
like, and persistently insist that your "utility" metric (for some
"Ralphy" definition of utility) is still better. In fact, you are so
stubborn in your insistence, that you continue to talk as though I
said almost nothing, and as though you expect me to respect your
"technical" question as somehow relevant, *at-this-point*, in the
conversation.
In English, we call you a hypocrite.
I am wondering if you are merely alternate-position-challenged, or
alternate-belief-challenged, or religiously attached to relationship
communication boundary testing, or belligerently (attempting to)
dominating your own belief system on me.
However, although I hope, I do not really expect you to engage
intelligently with these _real_ considerations (as opposed to your
strawman considerations "of mine"), since you have persistently
ignored the heart of my conversation thus far. You might consider
occasionally swapping your conversational belief-presenting
steamroller ("Ralph's religion") for some occasional acknowledgement
laps-of-the-oval.
I wish you well Ralph, sincerely,
Zenaan
Reply to: