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 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 ones where >> > people have interpreted it that way and I've either told them they're >> > wrong or ignored them. Ones where it's actually true. Post references >> > to this thread. See how many you *actually* get, out of the number of >> > mails I send. >> >> You asked, and so a little bit of Googling produces these: >> >> 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 discussion - it was quite clearly a statement > that he was being ignored because he was just trying to start an > argument. I suppose you could claim it was a 'put-down', but I claim > it is a factually accurate description of the parent mail and I > challenge anybody to prove otherwise. This is an example of one of the significant limitations (perhaps good, perhaps not) in Debian's current culture: A lot of people think rudeness is excused -- and not just excusable -- when it saves them future effort. The parent mail is not clearly a troll to me, and I think it is preposterous to assume something is a troll until proven otherwise. >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00166.html > > I can see nothing in this mail that could be even remotely like > that. Explain your claim. It was counterproductive in that it did not advance any discussion. It was hypocritical in that it accused unspecified people of being trolls, while complaining that *they* were resisting efforts to build consensus. Insults never build consensus: even when they drive away individuals who disagree, they also splinter the consensus. >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00036.html > > And again. It's an appeal to accept your authority on whether someone is a troll. In the absense of supporting evidence, it's a put-down and simple provocation. >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/04/msg00248.html > > A restatement of what other people had previously said, and I still > see no way you can classify this as "little more than provocations, > put-downs, and trolls". An explanation of *why* telling users that GFDL docs moved to non-free is not "particularly important" would be useful, since your message is otherwise an out-of-hand dismissal of the idea. Likewise, insulting the survey without even one example is again put-down and provocation. Perhaps "constructive criticism" is an American peculiarity. >> perhaps http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00378.html >> (which I would call devoid of useful information but heavy in insults) > > Insults? WTF? Precise quoting and explanations please, I see none here. One insult is the reference to "a small group running around advocating knowingly putting non-free stuff into main", which is a serious charge. You were right that it would be absurd, but without support, it looks suspiciously like a strawman. Another implied insult is the distinction between the frequent posters to debian-legal: You are there because you send lots of short email, and others who are there are in your killfile. The only reason I see to mention that is to sugggest that they are not worth counting. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
