> But I think if we were to ask other readers of this list if anything
> I've said thus far could be construed as filibustering, I would *really*
> be surprised if just one agreed with you.
I do agree with him. In my opinion, your posts has been among the least
constructive, most dismissive of the other sides point of view, of all here
on the list.
Feel free to be really surprised.
Yes, I know it might seem this post is doing the same, but the "nobody but
one" argument has been used multiple times as another of the so called
"facts", so I just had to pipe up.
Back to lurk mode for me. life is short enough as it is...
Nils
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Alan Whiteman <a.c.white...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Please see my response between the lines below:
>
>
> On 03/15/2013 02:50 PM, Ben St-Pierre wrote:
> > Alan,
> >
> > So far, there are 70 comments.
> >
> > You made 9 comments.
> >
> > The first sells Scidvspc:
> >
> >> Scidvspc is a fork of scid with many improvements. It is also actively
> maintained.
>
> This is a verifiable fact. I'm not selling it... it is already sold.
>
> > followed by a RTFM, not even to the relevant page.
>
> You are wrong. It's followed by a link to the scidvspc page that shows a
> list of improvements over old scid, which is what the op was asking about.
>
> > The second says
> >
> >> From a user's point of view, it does not make sense to have two scid
> branches. One is hardly maintained while the other is actively developed,
> with bugs and new features addressed. Many users made the switch to
> scidvspc just for that reason. Eventually, most all scid users would have
> abandoned the scid branch for scidvspc.
> > Which repeats one of the argument of the previous post, and sells
> > again Scidvspc.
>
> Again not selling anything. Just stating the facts. A sales pitch would
> imply that I'm trying to convince someone of something that may, or many
> not, be true. However, scidvspc is factually better than scid.
>
> > Note that we can see that the first sentence shows that you've already
> > made the argument which I called you on your filibustering.
>
> I've stated the fact scidvspc is better than scid. You can label that
> filibustering if it hurts your sensibilities. But you cannot argue
> against it.
>
> > In the third, we read:
> >
> >> I think most people, including project lead Alex, are very much in
> favor of having Steve on board and have scidvspc merge into scid. The only
> person not too happy about this is Fulvio. This is understandable since
> > years of his own efforts are being set aside. Of course, his
> > contributions will still live in the dev branches and he can continue
> > to add to the current code or the new code.
> >
> > This is the first "let's have a merge", which has been repeated on
> > another mailing list, and we see the repetition of the argument "but
> > you'll stay on the dev branch", which has already been said in the
> > previous comment.
>
> You are wrong here again. The words "let's have a merge" were never, in
> fact used. It clearly states "I think most people ... are very much in
> favor of having Steve on board and have scidvspc merge into scid." So
> this is your own self-serving fabrication.
>
> Let me repeat: For as long as scidvspc is actively maintained, I could
> care less about the merge proceeding or not.
>
> > In the fourth, we read:
> >
> >> Only if it contributes to the program. Neither Steve or Alex ever said
> or implied they would purge Fulvio's code. But, what if Fulvio's code is
> buggy or incompatible with some new features- Should it be included anyway?
> It does not make sense.
> > which repeats what has been said at least two times in previous
> > comments, with the only addition of a red herring: nobody's asking to
> > add buggy code. If it makes no sense, chances are that this is not
> > what's envisioned in the first place.
>
> Of course it is not envisioned in the first place. What obtuse person
> would make such assumption? But good of you to take the conversation out
> of context to make your point. You should be in politics.
>
> > In the fifth, we read:
> >
> >> The project leads will have to make decisions based on what is on the
> best interest of the project and its users.
> > which adds nothing, except underlining that your arguments, so far,
> > has been selflessly based, which is doubtful.
>
> I was replying to the op, nothing more. I have no invested interests in
> scid. The comment was made with the assumption that the merge would
> proceed, with all its inherent benefits.
>
> > In the sixth, you apologized for having misread Fulvio.
>
> Good observation.
>
> > In the seventh, we read:
> >
> >> Svn vs git is an issue that should be resolved firstly since one cannot
> have a community of developers work in a single project in two channels.
> It sounds messy.
> > which has been said earlier in the thread, and is empty, as far as I can
> tell.
>
> Empty of what... Pretense, malice, filibustering?
>
> > We also read:
> >
> >> At the same time I don't agree that there should be two versions of
> scid equally billed as options (similar to Linux distros) because scid and
> > scidvspc have differences beyond a couple of features. Scidvspc is a
> > far better, faster, and more complete implementation.
> >
> > which *again* sells scidvspc.
>
> Again, not selling anything. Just stating self-evident facts that need
> to be taken into account. Being a verified fact, this is a "sold".
>
> > We also have this question:
> >
> >> Once Steve fixes the docking feature in scidvspc, what's left for old
> scid?
> > which shows that you have no idea why Fulvio is furious in the first
> place.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > I could go on, but I believe that, so far, you have claimed something
> like:
> >
> > - Scidvspc is better than Scid
> > - we should not confuse the users by having two projects
> > - a merge would the best for the community
>
> All true.
>
> > And I believe I have shown that you've said this many times.
>
> Pointless and irrelevant.
>
> > In other words, you have rooted for scidvspc, dismissed Fulvio's
> > concerns, and expressed your incredulity as to why we're having this
> > conversation.
>
> I have rooted for scidvspc as much as I have rooted for the merge. The
> merge can only be beneficial. Fulvio's concerns have been addressed by
> Steve and others- several times.
>
> > Fulvio said you were trolling, btw. Fulvio says you're trolling and
> > you apologize; I say you're filibustering and you screed.
>
> Fulvio did not say I was trolling. He *asked* if he was being a victim
> of a troll. He was obviously upset and I did apologize. You on the other
> hand, are labeling my posts as filibustering. As if my intentions were
> to sway popular opinion against Fulvio and scid, or otherwise have some
> sort of influence on the decision to merge. Or perhaps you think that my
> true objective is to downplay Fulvio and other scid developers as a
> negative campaign to give Steve some sort of advantage.
>
> > ***
> >
> > Like I said, even now, I think you mean well. But please, instead of
> > expressing outrage and claim your freedom of speech,
>
> You can counter my points, but you shouldn't accuse me of filibustering
> and advise me to cease. "Stop filibustering ..." Are you kidding me?
>
> > which is another
> > red herring since I'm not censoring your right to express anything
> > that comes out of your mind, please consider that what I made was an
> > **offer**, and that this offer was not to made to you. To comment on
> > an offer is counterproductive, if it's to dismiss it by repeating
> > something that has been said, void of any real argument.
>
> In which case your "offer" should not have been made in the public
> forum. Otherwise it is very much subject to view, inspection, and
> opinion. Are we to regard your "offers" as above scrutiny?
>
> > It makes little pragmatic sense.
> >
> > You have the right to say that this is not filibustering. I claim
> > otherwise. And as you can see, I can argue for my claim. In fact, the
> > video shows how to deal with filibustering, and this is what I'm doing
> > right now. If you prefer, I'd tell you that you are being
> > *argumentative*. See what this means on the Exchange communities.
>
> I don't think that you have made a solid case against my comments and
> labeling them as filibustering. You make generalizations out of post
> snippets, get them out of context, and claim that I'm selling something.
> But I think if we were to ask other readers of this list if anything
> I've said thus far could be construed as filibustering, I would *really*
> be surprised if just one agreed with you.
>
> > ***
> >
> > Finally, I **expressly** told you that I was *not* asking you to take
> > a look at the video because of its name. This does not seem to be
> > what you heard, because you say:
> >
> >> Per your definition of "poisonous" [...]
> > I have not offered any definition of "poisonous". I don't think *you*
> > are poisoning the well. I'm *explaining* to you why I think this
> > needs to be addressed: being overly argumentative *can* lead to loss
> > of morale.
>
> I definitely don't believe that I'm "overly argumentative". Stating the
> fact that scidvspc is better developed than scid, and a merge would be
> beneficial to both communities, is not vitriol by any measure.
>
> > Not only do I argue that you're filibustering, but I'm trying to make
> > sure that we'll still be on speaking terms after that exchange. To
> > show you this, from now on, I won't comment anything else than your
> > arguments, and only if it's relevant. And if you make good points,
> > I'll plus them.
>
> That would be appreciated.
>
> > I contribute to this mailing list before Pascal's time. Scid's not
> > what I would like it to be. Scidvspc neither. I can live with that.
> >
> > I'm sorry you feel like you do, but I believe that I've offered enough
> > justifications to make you see why I told you so.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
> _______________________________________________
> Scid-users mailing list
> Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
