On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 01:23:20AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
As someone who reads a lot of these mailing lists, I suggest the
following perspective on this matter:
Is it possible that an in-appropriate conversational style used by
developers causes people who might be valuable
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 01:23:20AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
I'm not sure the issue of the accusations is the useful issue to
resolve. I'm not going to debate the particulars of whether or not
accusations have been made or might or might not be valid, because I
*really* don't think that's the
There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech. Just count
the number of people who like your style versus the number of people who
are pissed off by it and adjust accordingly.
I reject this notion that communication is a popularity contest.
Unfortunalty many people have
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:13:21PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg01598.html
Looks like a perfectly justified response to me. I don't see how that
could be classified as 'provocation' or 'troll', because in no sense
did it encourage more
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:40:52PM +0300, Horst Lederhosen wrote:
There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech. Just count
the number of people who like your style versus the number of people who
are pissed off by it and adjust accordingly.
I reject this notion that
Andrew Suffield writes:
So your claim is that you can never object to people for working
against consensus because doing so would be working against
consensus. Well, that appears to deny you from being allowed to make
that point, so I think your argument is self-defeating.
I have no
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:43:16AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Your approach seemed much more likely to annoy and
mislead people than to help identify where they agree or disagree.
I disagree, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.
But I give up.
That says it all really. I've rebutted
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:09:35PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:23:18PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Did you not read my original mail? I
Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
explanation at length.
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:08:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks
otherwise to
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Looks like a perfectly justified response to me.
Which is the basic problem isn't it? Communication involves not only how
responses look to oneself but how they look to other people.
There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 12:42:37PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Looks like a perfectly justified response to me.
Which is the basic problem isn't it? Communication involves not only how
responses look to oneself but how they look to other
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:50:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
explanation at length.
When you start making accusations, you are obliged to back them up
with explanations. Otherwise you are merely denying any right to
respond,
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:50:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
explanation at length.
When you start making accusations, you are obliged to back them up
with explanations. Otherwise you are merely
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I reject this notion that communication is a popularity contest.
But if other people don't accept your rejection of the notion then it
won't do you any good will it? Well, we can only go around in circles on
this point so I'll just stop here.
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
How else should I consider a mail that simply declares Troll.? Do
you think it is not rude? Or was the point of the brevity something
besides saving yourself the effort of justifying the judgment?
I thought that pro-active anti-troll interventions
MJ Ray writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
How else should I consider a mail that simply declares Troll.? Do
you think it is not rude? Or was the point of the brevity something
besides saving yourself the effort of justifying the judgment?
I thought that pro-active
[Andrew Suffield]
I acknowledge that I occasionally write mails which can be sharp and
pointy, but generally it's just in response to similarly sharp
mails. It's hardly uncommon in Debian;
Perhaps not, but is it smart to send such messages, and is it the kind
of messages you want to be
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:23:00AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Andrew Suffield]
I acknowledge that I occasionally write mails which can be sharp and
pointy, but generally it's just in response to similarly sharp
mails. It's hardly uncommon in Debian;
I suspect we would reduce
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In my experience, it is sometimes necessary to get somebody's
attention, and it does sometimes work. The trick is one of
judgement. I stand by mine and challenge anybody to show it to be
significantly worse than the norm.
You
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
In my experience, it is sometimes necessary to get somebody's
attention, and it does sometimes work. The trick is one of
judgement. I stand by mine and challenge
Andrew Suffield writes:
My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks
otherwise to present evidence. I sign almost all my outgoing mails;
this should be easy, if it were true. Find mails from me that are
little more than provocations, put-downs, and trolls. Not
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:23:18PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Did you not read my original mail? I thought it quite clear. I'll
repeat the relevant paragraph here:
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED], [2005-08-09 23:09 +0100]:
sigh I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this
crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far.
FWIW, I'll not sign this pledge.
Closing my ears and not even listening to what one has got
23 matches
Mail list logo
