On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com >> >wrote: >> >> > Hi! >> > >> > > Yeah I know. That doesn't mean I have to like it though lol. ;P >> > >> > You may like it or not like it, but it's established terminology so >> > we're going to use it. Let's not add noise to our lists. >> > -- >> > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect >> > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ >> > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 >> > >> >> If we don't critically re-examine "established" ideas now and then, who >> will? > > > please go with that problem to github, we didn't coined that term, so we > can't really fix it for you. > > >> You can disagree with me, but please don't belittle other people's >> concerns by dismissing them as "noise." > > > it is noise on this mailing list, as this isn't the place to fix that > term, even if you are right. > > >> I raised a legitimate concern that >> was not "unworthy" of discussion. Just because I hold a minority >> viewpoint >> doesn't make it any less valid and I stand by my posts. Ironically, your >> dismissive comment after the fact only increased the "noise" factor by at >> least two more posts. >> > > the thing is that it wasn't your first or second post which regulars would > count as noise, so this time somebody mentioned that you shouldn't do that. > > >> >> I believe that the majority, including Github, is wrong on this. > > > yeah, but how can you fix that with lecturing people here? > > >> That term >> is needlessly confusing in my opinion. I made that point and it didn't >> gain any traction, so like I said I'll just have to suck it up and move >> on. But if you're going to jump in with a, "We're gonna do it this way so >> shut up," then all that's going to do is create animosity and drag this >> out >> since obviously I"m not about to let such a comment go unchallenged. ;P >> > > sigh. > > >> >> If you want to keep beating this dead horse, I'm game. Otherwise, all the >> arguments have already been made so just let it go. I voiced my concern >> and the majority doesn't share it, so that's that. Time to move on. >> > > \o/ > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu > The horse is already dead. Why are you still wacking it with a stick? Last time I checked, the PHP Group doesn't take orders from Github. We have the power to use whatever internal terminology we damn well please with or without their permission. But again, why do you insist on resurrecting this dead discussion?? I've already acknowledged repeatedly that I'm in the minority on this one. But just because you and a few other stuffed shirts don't understand the value of dissenting viewpoints, that doesn't mean that said dissent amounts to "noise." Maybe some people here aren't accustomed to having their edicts challenged. Either way, I've noticed a consistent pattern of dissenting views being clamped-down and summarily dismissed in the same manner; that is, in part, what prompted me to become more active on here to begin with. I.e. because I'm accustomed to dealing with a tough room. I'm a liberal intellectual in the U.S., so being in the oft-dismissed and shouted-down minority is something I am very much used to. =) But seriously, the discussion on the terminology has already ended. Everything has been said. I don't like the choice that the majority has made but I'll just have to live with it. I made my suggestion, presented my argument, and this time it just didn't have legs. You win some, you lose some; I'm ok with that. I still believe a more accurate term would be better but I've already moved on. It's time for you to do the same and let it go. You're not accomplishing anything by continuing to drag this out. Let the dead horse rest in peace. --Kris
