On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:03:10PM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: > On Friday 20 August 2004 4:15 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 11:04:42AM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: > > > There is no such thing as a rational dialog with > > > people of this ilk, because their goal is not to engage in any kind of > > > constructive communication. It's all about disruption, pointless arguing, > and > > > attention-getting at any cost. > > > > You're going to have a *really* hard time finding people in Debian who > > fit that description. > > LOL! You haven't been reading this list, have you. Every single mail, from the archives. There haven't exactly been many. There have been *none* who fit this description (disregarding spam and viruses; I don't recall if any have slipped through, but it's irrelevant anyway). > > > Don't you think it's unfair to the people who are helpful, and > > > useful, and who really contribute to the project, to force them to put up > > > with that lot? > > > > Anybody who has any trouble dealing with the sort of thing you > > describe, is *far* too unstable to be allowed anywhere near package > > maintainance, or anything else involving users. > > Oh that's good, trash all kinds of people you know nothing about. I know precisely one thing about them, which is the thing that I defined the group with, and I draw conclusions based on that thing. > > > And I think it damages Debian, because you lose good people > > > who can find plenty of projects that are not infested with trolls and > various > > > other destructive idiots. > > > > I find this comment monumentally amusing for its naivete. Anything > > with so few people that none of them are idiots is too small to > > deserve the label "project". > > Baloney. There are many groups and communities that are not blessed with > people like JW and MJR. Continuing to be very amusing. > > > I have yet to meet anyone who is so wonderful and gifted and indispensible > > > that they can be excused from showing common courtesy. > > > > I have yet to meet two people who shared a definition of "common > > courtesy". That's where your argument falls down really. You can sit > > around all day and agree that it would be better if people were > > "nicer" or "more polite", but you will *never* reach agreement about > > what that means, and you'll probably find your notions are > > fundamentally incompatible with those of at least some other people. > > Legalistic nitpicking. Where there are differences, reasonable people of > goodwill try to find common ground. Why are you defending poor behavior? Because that common ground is a myth, and the only poor behaviour *I* see here is yours. I see only one person throwing accusations about other people's motivations (which are blatantly invented), and using these accusations as a basis to dismiss them and their arguments (which is fallacious; motivation for positing an argument *never* determines the validity of the argument). Now, what was that you were saying about "courtesy" and "common ground"? Your definition seems to be diametrically opposed to mine. > > > It is pretty bad- I'm > > > involved in a lot of online communities, and Debian is definitely the > worst > > > of the lot. > > > > Eris' beard, where have you *been*? > > > > What does that mean? That because my experiences are different from yours, > mine are not valid? That I cannot reconcile them with the world I know. > I don't even know why you are here, except to snipe. Do you have anything > positive to contribute? Since you apparently don't like anything about D-W, > why are you here? Any dolt can be against anything, that takes zero ability > or intelligence. It's a lot harder to be constructive. It is very easy to construct something; any child can do it. It is far harder to construct something worthwhile, and even more so to discard the parts that are not. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature