On 10/17/2020 3:09 AM, to...@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.