Re: How to Boot Linux ISO Images Directly From Your Hard Drive Debian
On Sat 07 Aug 2021 at 14:26:41 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 10:02:36AM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-08-07 9:31 a.m., Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 11:56:52AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > >> On Fri 06 Aug 2021 at 19:11:48 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >>> It's only required that people believe you did something for them to act
> > >>> like you did it.
> > >>
> > >> Indeed. Disseminate an unsubstantiated rumour (as in this thread) and
> > >> it's not long before the lynch mob hits the streets.
> > >
> > > I would never have blocked "Gunnar" based on an accusation that he
> > > was trolling.
> > >
> > > I blocked him after he confessed that he was trolling.
>
> Personally blocking people / adding them to your "I'll ignore this person
> when I see them" is fine. [The old "Congratulations, you have found your
> way into my killfile. *PLONK* - type message.]
Given that it is a user's right to control the mail he wants to
receive, I have always found it it strange when a blocking is
announced to the world.
> Accusing people of trolling is generally not helpful in any way.
It is hardly assuming good faith. Just do not reply.
> > I think that the line that was crossed simply mandate that he gets
> > ignored by now.
> > I did so with the last message he sent me yesterday (and posted on the
> > list). Was a bunch of hard to follow series of sentence. But this
> > confirm that it seems to be a choice done on having incomprehensible
> > messages and loose talk, because he did write some clear and well
> > written message.
>
> I think that this person had difficulties in explaining themselves. That made
> it annoying / frustrating to see no progress. We all threw in effort and it
> didn't seem to be going very far. I'm not going to speculate whther that
> difficulty was accidental / deliberate to wastte our time.
Speculating on people's motives in public is fraught at the best of
times. On this list "Assume good faith" is a guiding principle so
you wouldn't do it anyway.
> > I feel that many person cherry pick one message, like the one I wrote
> > and got out of context, talking about a Lynch mob.
> >
> > Often when someone ask for help, we'll answer back that there's
> > information missing so we can answer properly.
> > Example, the person say
> > *I can't start X11*
> > And we'll ask
> > What version of Debian are you running ?
> > What are the outputs ? Logs ?
> > What's your graphic card / GPU ?
> > etc...
> >
>
> See also why I picked some elements from Greg's list / David's message to
> put into the monthly FAQ messsage. It now has a section on how to ask
> good questions and read the answers. Thanks, list, for reminding me and
> making me amend the mail.
>
> > Why do we do so ?
> > So our answer is relevant.
> >
> > Same rules apply when giving comment, if you want to have it relevant
> > then look at the whole story.
> > Or you'll only get a part and go off track.
>
> This has been a particularly frustrating thread and hard to follow in
> general.
I found its general thrust easy to follow. User-criticism par
excellance.
--
Brian.
Reply to: