Re: [gentoo-project] Various IRC Discussions (was Deferred decision: Forums)

[desultory <desultory@gentoo.org>]

On 06/16/19 06:36, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 12:52 AM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/15/19 07:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> And while we're at it, can we just let people state their own opinions
>>> if they care to?  I realize everybody around here feels deprived if I
>>> don't weigh in on every single thread, but it isn't necessary to
>>> paraphrase from the book of rich0 when for some reason he is
>>> neglecting his no-doubt-numerous disciples on a thread that isn't
>>> directly related to what is being cited...  I mean, historically it
>>> hasn't been THAT hard to flame-bait me into responding to stuff...
>>>
>> Given that you are not presently on the council, it seems rather
>> unlikely that you would be a present council member actively seeking
>> divergent votes from the council and trustees. Further, making earnest
>> inquires hardly seeks to qualify as deliberate flame bait, especially
>> not baiting you when you are expressly not one of the parties whose
>> opinion was sought. So, like, chill and stuff.
> 
> I'm not sure if you actually read the 72 lines of text that you
> quoted, but it included the following line:
> 
>> So just to keep your IRC commentary on the ML record, ...
> 
> That was directed at me.  Hence I replied to it.  Just another reason
> why it is better to not excessively quote.
> 
Problem with that reasoning being that you did not reply to that
message, you replied to one which I wrote. The one you quoted, in case
that was somehow ambiguous.

Quoting the entirety of a message being replied to is fairly common
practice, if for no other reason than to curtail claims of quotes being
taken out of context. Which is somewhat ironic in this case as that is
arguably what you did by claiming to have replied to a message that was
itself quoted for context instead of the message to which you actually
replied. If you replied to the wrong message by mistake, just replying
to that effect would have been clearer, more concise, and less
confrontational than the approach that you took.

> Also, my email did not state that either your message or the one that
> you quoted was flame-bait.  Only that yours was off-topic to the
> thread, which it was.  This has nothing to do with the forums.
> 
Being a direct reply to that message, it did at very least make that
implication. And, pray tell, how is inquiring as to what the perceived
benefits of voting in a particular manner on the matter at hand off
topic when discussing the matter at hand? Is it your opinion that
council members should not consider the results of a vote when making
it? If so, why? Also if that is, as you imply, the case; what exactly
would the point of having the council vote at all be? (You made the
argument here, I am simply asking for clarification.)