Hi, On 2021-08-06 6:58 p.m., Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 06:49:13PM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2021-08-06 5:08 p.m., Greg Wooledge wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:48:46PM +0300, Gunnar Gervin wrote: >>>> Didier, >>>> most certainly you cannot prove >>> >>> Wow. You really are a horrible person, aren't you. >>> >>> And so, another person goes into my kill file. >>> >> Showing a random passport doesn't show much, except maybe that you ain't >> the rightful owner of this passport. > > I didn't even open the URL they gave. I didn't care what it was, really. > > They were accused of using multiple (phony) personas on a mailing list, > and how did they respond? Not "you're wrong", but "you can't prove it". > I didn't understand it this way but now as you describe it this way, it becomes more clear to my mind. It's a childish behavior of thinking that because there's no proof then it means that there won't be consequences. But as you say, we ain't a court of law. It's only required that people believe you did something for them to act like you did it. You get someone new at the job and for the first time ever, the printer is jammed and there's a broken Ink cartridge. Everyone knows that this printer must be handled with care. The new worker say "You can't prove it's me", no we don't have a picture of you jamming the printer by using the wrong paper thickness BUT WE HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE it's you. And probably the boss won't keep you long... > To me, that's a tacit ADMISSION of guilt. As in, "Ha ha, look at how > clever I am, I fooled you all, and I'm getting away with it!" > I don't think we are part of the fool here... Even more as his last message was strangely the most clearly written one in the whole context of conversation with him. > Well, this is not a court of law. We do not have to PROVE that someone > has acted with malice. If you even simply pretend to be a malicious > person, that's more than enough to get yourself ignored. > > Earlier, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and said that there wasn't > enough evidence that they were trolling us. As it turns out, I was wrong. > That happens. > Giving benefit of doubt is never wrong, it's the proof with have faith in human. -- Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside -Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature