]] Michael Banck
Hi,
| Yes, I know. But due to it getting all the bug traffic, it is not very
| inviting to people just interested in reviewing ITPs/get notified about
| ITAs/Os. I should have suggested a different name, or moving the
| current -wnnp traffic elsewhere first.
|
| However, ther
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> at Debconf9, there was a BoF about the debian-devel list and how we
> could possibly make it more attractive.
...
> * Maybe split off WNPP Traffic to a new -wnpp list?
...
> The other discussed item was about ITPs. It turned out that roughl
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes
> the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
Often, there are more-relevant questions: whether the argument belongs
at all in the specific forum where it was presented, or whether the form
of
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > And really, if some logical conclusion is so broken that this brokeness
>> > has its own name, then everybody should be able to see it.
>
>> This is a nice theory, but in rea
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > These attacks on people, as opposed to discussion of what
> > they said, is one of the major reasons discussion threads devolve
> > into unproductive chaos. We should be managing to police dis
Michael Banck writes:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed, leaving logical fallacies unchallenged does [more]
> > to harm the discussion than pointing them out and trying to bring
> > the thread back to a logical discussion; and leaving ad homi
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Allowing these logical fallacies to stand, and not refuting
>> them, lead to a discussion that goes nowhere, or floats off into sub
>> optimal directions if not scotched in th
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > And really, if some logical conclusion is so broken that this brokeness
> > has its own name, then everybody should be able to see it.
> This is a nice theory, but in reality one does see people arging
> against the per
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Allowing these logical fallacies to stand, and not refuting
> them, lead to a discussion that goes nowhere, or floats off into sub
> optimal directions if not scotched in the bud.
>
> Indeed, leaving logical fall
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> > Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when
> > challenging those logical fallacies?
>
> I think succinct terms help not at all here. Once there is a succinct
> term 90% of their use is name-calling.
You apparently pe
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:57:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote [edited]:
> No, one of the biggest issues currently on the list is that some people
> are engaging into rhetorical wars and bikeshedding, instead of the
> technical discussions we expect.
+1
Perhaps we should add pop-up (anti)featur
Mask to Protect from H1N1 virus
3 ply surgical face mask :
Detailed Product Description :
Surgical Mask
Material : PPSB + Meltblown
Model : 3 ply nonwoven swine flu face amsk
Colour : White
Apply : H1N1
Standard : EN149 : 2001
Stock : 1 500 000 pcs
Now we can offer you large quantit
Le mardi 18 août 2009 à 15:25 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> These attacks on people, as opposed to discussion of what they
> said, is one of the major reasons discussion threads devolve into
> unproductive chaos. We should be managing to police discussion better,
> and the first st
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But really, the divergence from the discussion happened earlier,
> when the discussion degenerated into name calling (which is what ad
> hominem attacks are), or strawman attacks, which tend to derail the
> discussion by standing up irrelevant positions and argi
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
>> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>>
>> > Perhaps there is a way to [???] discourage all meta-discussion or
>> > mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
>> > lists.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a better wa
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Leo \"costela\" Antunes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
>>> mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
>>> lists.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a better wa
* Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>
> > Perhaps there is a way to [???] discourage all meta-discussion or
> > mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
> > lists.
>
> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
> those log
Hi,
Ben Finney wrote:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>
>> Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
>> mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
>> lists.
>
> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
> those logical falla
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Banck writes:
>
> I think the most effective way of tackling this would be if we could
> somehow reassure people that the loudest voice isn't going to carry the
> day in discussions of project technical direction. I think the fear that
> if one doesn't keep rebuttin
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:44:14PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> > at Debconf9, there was a BoF about the debian-devel list and how we
> > could possibly make it more attractive.
>
> Was this recorded (I can't find it in the initial video rele
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
> mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
> lists.
Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
those logical fallacies? Surely you're not saying you w
* Michael Banck [090817 23:42]:
> Regarding CCs, it was hightlighted that the current list conduct
> explicitely says (since a short while ago) people should refrain from
> complaining about CCs on-list and do this privately. Further discussion
> made clear that most of the people present might c
22 matches
Mail list logo
