On 03/15/2013 05:42 PM, Nils R Grotnes wrote: > > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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
I am surprised. But can you really trust a top-posting lurcher? I don't think so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
