Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private. -A
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Thomas Anderson<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: >> Thomas Anderson wrote: >> >> > Steven J Long wrote: >> >> Denis Dupeyron wrote: >> >> >> >> > This list is for technical discussions only. >> >> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not >> >> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 >> >> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. >> >> >> > >> > Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have >> > had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). >> > Would you please stop that? >> > >> I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the >> benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my >> interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in >> a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to >> be. > > There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, > I > was referring to: > > "This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie." > > "And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign > rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking." <--- > Not > exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel. > > "You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC." > > "Nice summaries though." Not exactly an insult though it was probably > sarcastic. > > And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: "Clearly you are fairly > immature" and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both > unsubstantiated and untrue). > > And other in general attitude problems against me. >> >> > Also, public mailing-lists >> >> > are not for discussing your personal issues. >> >> > >> >> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a >> >> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. >> > >> > The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the >> > reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly >> > straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being >> > called a 'lie') in that summary >> >> You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have >> considered my point of view very much. > > So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into > something I > merely "haven't" considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my > image > of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in > the wrong. > >> > I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your >> > remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time >> > and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. >> > >> You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to >> maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the >> politicking, you didn't have in any case. > > Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd > be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more > impartial so I can improve my process. > >> As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I >> appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else >> puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done. > > You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about > it > being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it > because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial. > >> >> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get >> >> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. >> > >> > See above, especially the part saying "for what he called". >> >> >> I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo >> devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means >> disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads >> like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran >> actually behaves than a direct attack on him. > > By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this > thread. > Think it's fair? > > >> >> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're >> >> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, >> >> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the >> >> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and >> >> not an issue of borked process. >> > >> > I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which >> > is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this >> > problem. >> > >> Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He >> raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself. > > Well considering you were replying to *me* on the list it is a logical > deduction > that you were talking to me. But sorry for that. >> >> Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you >> now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for > > The discussion as I saw it was _all_ about your ban in #-council, not having > anything to do with userrel actions. Note that in the interests of clarity I > even mentioned that the topic was about #-council in the topic of that part of > the summary. As stated, userrel does not decide who can be banned in > #-council, > the council does which is what the council topic was about. > >> >> >> >> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more >> >> professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. >> > >> > See above. >> > >> >> As it is, this is >> >> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our >> >> own problems. I am glad there's an election on. >> > >> > So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all. >> > >> Please make it clear where I have lied at all. As stated you did take part >> in a concerted political end-run around the devrel and userrel procedures. > > How was I involved at all with devrel or userrel? That's a lie right there. > For > other insults and slandering see the top of my mail. >> >> I've tried to take that as your ignorance of the situation; if you're saying >> you were fully cognizant of the process, then you have changed in the last >> 3 years even more than I thought. You really should consider the totality >> of what the other person is saying before you libel them. > > I've not libeled anyone, stop saying I have without any proof. > >> As I did in #-devrel AND #-userrel, I'd like to drop this now. As stated it >> was only about getting my side of events on the record, since I was given >> no opportunity in #-council and indeed zero warning that it was coming. If >> that is so hard to comprehend, might I suggest some downtime, as you sound >> quite burnt-out to me. > > I'm not burnt out(though I'm going on vacation for a week), and please do not > say I am. >> >> I'll only respond to substantively new issues, and if it all possible I >> won't be responding on this thread again. If that offends, it's not >> intended. > > Since most of what you have said in this thread is false or insults that > shouldn't be too hard. >> -- >> #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) >> >> > > -- > --------- > Thomas Anderson > Gentoo Developer > ///////// > Areas of responsibility: > AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council > --------- >
