From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB06E1380DC for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01DC3E0CA0; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB43E0BAB for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14B233EEE2 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:22:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.459 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.925, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.532, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mu_XAyQjKpyr for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C537433D920 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:22:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WBHPi-00014y-N2 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 06:22:14 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 06:22:14 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 06:22:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: dropping redundant stable keywords Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 05:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org> <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391559808.3520.2.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205020742.048cef9f@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391564122.3520.4.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205024806.7d08cb63@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391570147.3520.7.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140205055544.6c3affea@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <1391616442.3160.6.camel@oswin.hackershack.net> <20140206031254.7ef65acb@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140206035324.071a0f93@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT 7ca9c6c /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: 281387f5-d1c7-4357-8355-bbae8538cbd7 X-Archives-Hash: 4a5b429b6df152da0dc4bba3df9318fc Tom Wijsman posted on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 03:53:24 +0100 as excerpted: > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:12:54 +0100 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > >> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:07:22 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski >> wrote: >> >>> I'm attempting to have a discussion with a brick wall. >> >> I hit that problem immediately in another sub-thread. Are we on to >> something here? > > Yes, we are; for more details: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Thanks for the link. Certainly thought provoking and I agree. With it nicely laid out like that, I can now more concretely try to up the DH level of my own replies in the future. =:^) (OTOH, acknowledging that this is in itself DH2/tone or DH0/name-calling, tho with a counterargument to a slightly different point so I guess it's DH4, I'm compelled to observe that repeatedly asking "Why?" as a one-word reply calls to mind the young child's constant "Why?" stage... a bit after they get past the earlier constant "NO!" stage... As about any parent or children's care giver can certainly attest, it /does/ get frustrating at some point. Perhaps you were simply trying to up the DH level, but in that case, something beyond "Why?" could have been useful. Arguably simply and repeatedly asking "Why?", without any indication even of what particular bit you're "whying", must be a parallel form of DH1 or at best DH2, ad hominem or tone. Once was arguably useful, but after seeing it used multiple times in multiple replies, the usefulness was entirely gone and the single word question was no longer a useful contribution to the discussion. Please reconsider that technique in the light of your above link before repetitive use in the future, and at least make it a useful sentence, not simply the one word, because especially when repeated, that single one word really does look childish and tends to increase frustration and reduce the quality of the discussion.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman