On 10/17/2020 3:09 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 04:46:42PM -0500, Leslie Rhorer wrote:On 10/16/2020 4:57 AM, Pierre-Elliott B�cue wrote:[...]This is nonsense. Whenever I forced to do something, or worse yet, prevented from doing something by a consensus of incompetent individuals, I have every right to complain.... and when *you* get to decide who is to be "a consensus of incompetent individuals" is the point where we part ways.
A consensus is not a "who". It is a thing. In particular it is an explicit or implicit judgement concerning some topic. It is a figurative vote concerning a specific idea.
A single person - in this case me - never decides what a consensus is. By definition, a consensus is produced by a group, typically a large one.
Finally, who is or is not competent can of course be opined by anyone, but in general such an opinion has greater weight from a professional than an amateur. In many cases, such as this one, there are quantitative standards of measurement. In short, anyone who falls significantly short of being a qualified expert in Linux fits the bill for this example.
Sorry, I'm a command line junkie myself, and I try to seduce people to try that anytime I get a chance, but your stance above can only be characterised as arrogant.
OK. So what? Apparently you think there is something wrong with being arrogant, which by the way makes your comment a personal attack and something other than polite, but what is wrong with being arrogant? One can argue, and I would tend to agree, there is something wrong with overweening arrogance unsupported by ability, but I find nothing wrong with arrogance in or of itself.
Feel free to ignore """lazy""" people from now on, but don't be irrespectful to them. You have no right to, and they don't deserve it.There is no such word - or concept - as irrespectful [...]C'mon. This is a mailing list in English, but its basis is very international. You get to enjoy the fact that other people try to adapt to your language as well as they can.
What is your point? There is nothing in the simple statement above that suggests I do not appreciate the fact others are making an attempt to broaden their language skills. Quite the opposite, the only rational deduction is I am attempting to help in their endeavor to do so. My question to you is, "Why aren't you helping"? Saying nothing in no way helps anyone improve their knowledge.
In this context, Postel's law [1] should apply (not only in language things, mind you).
I advise you not to push that button of mine. I absolutely detest when people attempt to stretch perfectly rigid technical or scientific postulates to cover situations completely irrelevant to the law in question. Postel's Robustness Principle concerns software protocols used by computing devices to transfer data. I am not a computer.
> Go fix your error correction algorithm. A new prefix mapping (e.g. > i -> dis, with the usual phonetic embellishments) might go a long > way. Don't be ridiculous.