Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in part:
there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try to build
consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else to do so.
It's interesting to scan through the thread and pick out who is
bringing anything to th
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:13:39 +0100, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in
> part: there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try
> to build consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else
> to do so.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> the Highway".
FWIW, my ballot ranks only one option bel
> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> the Highway".
Or it could mean that he prefers further discussion to several
options.
--
To UNSUBS
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:13:39AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in part:
> there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try to build
> consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else to do so.
This is hypocris
Hello Manoj,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> the Highway".
Sorry, b
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> > out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> > interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> > the Highway".
On Thu, Jun 24,
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:46:53 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come out. Anyone
>> who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not interested in
>> compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or the Highway".
> Or it could mean
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:19:04 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello Manoj,
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come out. Anyone
>> who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not interested in
>> com
> Which is the same thing as "My way or the highway". I like
> this one option, see, and would rather do nothing than even consider
> any of them thar oppossing view, no siree.
Are you telling us that if there were a GR consisting only of
undesirable options, you would rank them all above
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:59:10 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Which is the same thing as "My way or the highway". I like this one
>> option, see, and would rather do nothing than even consider any of
>> them thar oppossing view, no siree.
> Are you telling us that if there were a
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:19:04 +0100, Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In my opinion the best strategy [*] with our current voting system
> is to rank "further discussion" second, directly after your
> favourite option. This slightly increases the chances of your
> favourite option winning
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nice spin. Kinda like "Not allowing me to be a bigot is a
> pretty biased idea -- it discriminates against bigots".
Disagree and you are compared to a bigot? So now it's your way or the
highway, to borrow a phrase?
Manoj, you are not calming t
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:57:08AM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> I don't know what it is about your style of
> comunication, but it reminds me more of "debate club" than rational
> discussion in search of a common ground.
The implication here presumably being that illogical and invalid
arguments
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:08:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:13:39AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in part:
> > there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try to build
> > consensus, but
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:25:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> [You have quite neatly just demonstrated what "argumentum ad hominem"
> actually is, though].
Do you have that phrase on a macro key yet?
Bored,
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNS
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:13, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:57:08AM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> > I don't know what it is about your style of
> > comunication, but it reminds me more of "debate club" than rational
> > discussion in search of a common groun
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:58:45PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:13, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:57:08AM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> > > I don't know what it is about your style of
> > > comunication, but it reminds me more of
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:25:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > [You have quite neatly just demonstrated what "argumentum ad hominem"
> > actually is, though].
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:05:08PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Do you have that phrase on a macro key yet?
He was right that t
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:15:49AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > [You have quite neatly just demonstrated what "argumentum ad hominem"
> > > actually is, though].
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:05:08PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Do you have that phrase on a macro key yet?
>
> He was righ
> > He was right that time.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> No, he wasn't. An ad hominem argument appeals to non-rational things,
> whereas Hamish pointed out two facts: that Andrew started two general
> resolutions and that both of them were rather divisive.
I beli
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:25:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > He was right that time.
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > No, he wasn't. An ad hominem argument appeals to non-rational things,
> > whereas Hamish pointed out two facts: that Andrew started two ge
Hi, Russell Coker wrote:
> there are many arguments which are stupidly bogus.
Perhaps. Unfortunately, people's opinion on exactly which arguments are
"stupidly bogus", and which are merely not as well-thought-through as
you'd like, differ.
Also, while you might be factually correct (assuming t
23 matches
Mail list logo
