On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:58:45PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:13, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:57:08AM +0200, David N. Welton wrote: > > > I don't know what it is about your style of > > > comunication, but it reminds me more of "debate club" than rational > > > discussion in search of a common ground. > > > > The implication here presumably being that illogical and invalid > > arguments are "rational discussion in search of a common ground". > > > > I've never seen a debate club with rules other than that all arguments > > must be valid, and you have to let the opposition have time to speak > > (the latter of which obviously doesn't apply to mailing lists). > > "All arguments must be valid" is a fine rule if you want to have arguments for > fun. If you want to achieve something (such as developing a large software > project) then there are many arguments which are stupidly bogus. This has > been demonstrated many times on this list. Are you seriously suggesting that the bogus arguments are anything but cruft to be discarded? If not, I don't see your point. They certainly don't achieve anything. > As for the opposition having time to speak, once again that's nice if you are > just arguing for the fun of it but not if you are trying to get something > done. This list has many examples of people who do no work but who feel that > they deserve a right to be heard. I already said this obviously doesn't apply to mailing lists (did you read the mail you were replying to?); they operate massively in parallel, and therefore have no need of such a restriction. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature