Thomas Rast wrote:
> It has become clear, also in discussion on IRC, that your preferred
> approach is to fight the fires, attempting to extinguish flames as they
> happen.

Incorrect.  I am interested in minimizing occurrences, which is why I
started this thread: to calmly and rationally discuss how to achieve
that.  I have listed many concrete proposals, and justified them with

> My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
> regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a
> fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just remove the
> hazard, thus preventing future fires.

Presumably, Felipe is the "fire hazard" that we are talking about, and
nobody else is to blame.  He must be "removed" to prevent future
fires.  This is the "perception of the regulars", correct?

Then why haven't you removed him yet?  What are you waiting for?  You
don't need my "approval".

Is it because you have realized deep down that you have absolutely no
rational argument, and are arguing with an ill-formed "majority
opinion"?  I have words, you have words.  Why are you incapable of
using your words to counter my arguments rationally?Are you so blind
that you cannot see the consequences of acting without reason?
Tomorrow the majority opinion will dictate that I am a fire hazard and
must be removed.  Soon, anybody who disagrees with the majority
opinion will be removed, and the community will be reduced to a
handful of circlejerking yes-men.  The git project will die a sad
death.  And the blood will be on your hands.

> I infer that in your view, there is an inalienable right for the fire
> hazard to remain part of the community that you are not willing to give
> up.  I for one no longer have such qualms in this instance.

Incorrect.  There is no "transcendental inalienable right" that
dictates that "fire hazards" must remain part of the community.  I
never made such an irrational argument.  I already gave you the
example of the survivors on the boat with limited food/water on IRC:
it is you who stupidly refused to throw anyone overboard, killing all
the survivors; I am the one who said that I would get them to draw
sticks to "fairly choose" who to throw overboard, maximizing the
chances of survival of the others.  I am making a pragmatic argument,
based on what is best for the community; not some stuck-up idealistic
bullshit.  Further, I tried to help you think through the justice
problem, by recommending an accessible course.  You have either not
gone through it, or have gone through it and learnt nothing.

What should I "give up"?  My rationality?

Man up, and stop hiding being the veils of "majority opinion".  _Your_
opinion is that Felipe must be removed from the list without reason.
Don't talk for the others.  I'm sick of you "supporting" another
person's opinion.  Stand up and speak for yourself; leave Haggerty out
of it.

You have embarrassed yourself and the entire git community today.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to