Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Society of Ouroboros Meeting (n+1)
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Forums Feedback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

User: TomWij
Topic: When (and if) Gentoo will switch to systemd?
Post: post 7520798
Reason: can something be done about this? I'm being shown the "forum guidelines" and told in no uncertain terms that it is "off-topic" to respond to TomWij's elliptic reasoning and attempts at confining the discussion to *only* those things he wishes to have included. I've attempted to reason with him and provided explanations of what I've written, and its relevancy, but having now said I don't wish to have any further discussion with him he's throwing *his* idea of what is "off-topic" about as if he owns the rule book. Seriously, I want no further discussion with him but I hate this kind of BS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
User: TomWij
Topic: When (and if) Gentoo will switch to systemd?
Post: post 7520798
Reason: can something be done about this? I'm being shown the "forum guidelines" and told in no uncertain terms that it is "off-topic" to respond to TomWij's elliptic reasoning and attempts at confining the discussion to *only* those things he wishes to have included. I've attempted to reason with him and provided explanations of what I've written, and its relevancy, but having now said I don't wish to have any further discussion with him he's throwing *his* idea of what is "off-topic" about as if he owns the rule book. Seriously, I want no further discussion with him but I hate this kind of BS.


Hello khayyam, you appear to be misunderstanding me.

The first paragraph in that "reason with him" talks about how comments make sense in a context (hence read that context to understand me, your interpretation appears based on the second half), about tail chasing (among others I've cut the off-topic tail in the topic; and it looks like it works as the thread is back on-topic), about communication being hard; this very last thing is because I want to bring the thread back on-topic, this entire first paragraph has nothing to do with systemd or relevant topics and thus I'd like to see you stop talking about that there (and here) such that we can bring it back on-topic without the need for a report.

The second paragraph is about a funny pink painted neon flashing elephant; if you want to seriously communicate with me, note that such word usage distracts me in trying to understand what you're getting at and that it works better if you do that in private. As you can see, I've tried before too converse with you by sending you a PM; which you then instead publicized as "ramblings", rather than try to (dis)agree on it or ignore it.

Your last paragraph was more on-topic and I've read and reflected every word of that; however, given that your next response stops just after my first paragraph I wonder if you have read and considered the facts based viewpoint as to why I am listening that I wrote in my last paragraph in response. If you want, we can disagree on whether I listen; but before doing so, consider how that paragraph clarifies that I am listening to you but what you're getting at I don't see (as well as that the continuation from this "misunderstanding" keeps the thread from going back on-topic, which makes me wonder whether you are listening). If you want to disagree, ...

Now you report me instead of me reporting you, I've delayed reporting for long as I know you misunderstand me; I'm trying hard to see how I've walked across forum guidelines, as my goal here was to "keep on-topic" and thus why it is labeled as BS? Even when you mention "elliptic reasoning and attempts at confining the discussion" I don't see what you're getting at; none of your posts give an example, it is steveL's interruption early on in the thread that changed how things went and otherwise it would have gone fine (for details, read my response to your last paragraph). If you want to see what you claim to be BS as stopped; then stopping telling me in that topic, and it stops right away (as evidenced by all the last on-topic posts) as well as that on-topic makes my participation lower as promised.

If you want a constructive discussion about your topic, PM me and I'll be all ears. If not, going back to start to walk another road does wonders; it'll make time free to earn that $200. Your topic could be explained in private or #gentoo-forums on IRC rather than in that (and this) thread, as you can see from how it is and will be received. "For a minute, though, I couldn't tell how to fall out." ~ BIRDY - 1901 (As with previous quotes, almost the entire song applies here; it even has a mention of "elliptic")

Thank you in advance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
[...] I want to bring the thread back on-topic, this entire first paragraph has nothing to do with systemd or relevant topics and thus I'd like to see you stop talking about that there (and here) such that we can bring it back on-topic without the need for a report.

... and this precisely encapsulates your "elliptical reasoning": your responses consist entirely of an attempt at get the thread back "on-topic" while others in challenging you, and/or attempting to make any point other than how *you* conceive the "topic", have "nothing to do with the topic". This twist of reasoning provides you with the meta-stance that places *you* as arbiter of the ebb and flow of the discussion.

TomWij wrote:
The second paragraph is about a funny pink painted neon flashing elephant;

No, said elephant was the elephant in the room. It was painted "neon pink" because, well, I've explained ... this elephant is no where to be seen, you subsequently overlooked it by stating: "the relevancy of what is written compared to the topic of the thread is doubtful". I won't recapitulate what I've already written as its pointless to go over it again, only I should point out that there is a second elephant in the room, and that elephant is your stance as an *arbiter* and your mental acrobatics.

TomWij wrote:
if you want to seriously communicate with me, note that such word usage distracts me in trying to understand what you're getting at and that it works better if you do that in private. As you can see, I've tried before too converse with you by sending you a PM; which you then instead publicized as "ramblings", rather than try to (dis)agree on it or ignore it.

"Such word usage" is loaded ... again, communication uses all kinds of *subtle* tools, I use the words, metaphors, constructs, etc, I do precisely because these "express what a person is thinking and get to grips with (or investigate) what is expressed by another." Its disingenuous to say these are "distracting", you ignored the *spirit*, *meaning*, and *relevance* of what I'd written anyhow, only to replay "words" in some new context and bend the discussion to your own particular view of what that discussion is, and should be.

As far as I'm concerned the discussion is public because what I was responding to is your communication *in* public. I described your PM as "rambling" because that was my view of it, it wasn't so much a case of "publicising" as my asking you not to send more of the same.

TomWij wrote:
Your last paragraph was more on-topic and I've read and reflected every word of that; however, given that your next response stops just after my first paragraph I wonder if you have read and considered the facts based viewpoint as to why I am listening that I wrote in my last paragraph in response.

I'm not sure this even makes sense as a statement, anyhow, I only responded to the first paragraph as it illustrated the "mush you bring to such discussions", I made it clear that I wasn't going to converse with you under such circumstances, so there was nothing further to respond to.

Its interesting that you invoke this "facts based viewpoint" particularly as you've already confined the facts to those you narrowly allow as "on-topic". So, responding to your "fading away of the concept of a default", viz systemd's "very strict policy [to] push the distros to standardize on the same components for the base system" is irrelevant as we are "discussing this in the context of Gentoo switching to it" and this is "limited [to] what Gentoo allows". Isn't the *fact* here is the existence of a "very strict policy"? Yet, the "[...] relevancy of what is written compared to the topic of the thread is doubtful, especially when it is about the writers instead of the content." So, when I write: "it wasn't a bit of "fun" that I was splashing around in brightly coloured neon it was a real attempt at *highlighting* how such *facts* are avoided, and how the discussion (such as it is) is selective" such a statement is all "about the writers and not the content"? ... facts, who needs them.

TomWij wrote:
I'm trying hard to see how I've walked across forum guidelines, as my goal here was to "keep on-topic" and thus why it is labeled as BS? Even when you mention "elliptic reasoning and attempts at confining the discussion" I don't see what you're getting at; none of your posts give an example [...]

I reported you for your obnoxious waving of the rule book. Its "elliptic reasoning" because when you respond its *only* to "keep on topic" but when others respond to you its "off topic" to do so ... so no one should respond to your reasoning, tail chasing, etc, etc, not unless its first certified by your omnipotent understanding of the subject at hand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
So, responding to your "fading away of the concept of a default", viz systemd's "very strict policy [to] push the distros to standardize on the same components for the base system" is irrelevant as we are "discussing this in the context of Gentoo switching to it" and this is "limited [to] what Gentoo allows". Isn't the *fact* here is the existence of a "very strict policy"? Yet, the "[...] relevancy of what is written compared to the topic of the thread is doubtful, especially when it is about the writers instead of the content."
The topic is about systemd in the context of Gentoo, as in "When (and if) Gentoo will switch to systemd?"; alongside that, it is in the "Other Things Gentoo" forum, even Krinn's post is about Gentoo; therefore it is being discussed in the context of Gentoo and requested by multiple people to be brought back on-topic (as the moderators expressed they want the community to do self moderation), if that is perceived as a "very strict policy" then that perception ignores the context that it is written in. The same I perceive to be happening here; which makes your convincing come over as a misunderstanding where repeating yourself yields no progress, this is because the original context isn't referred to with references and/or examples but rather appears to be omitted. "Facts, who needs them"; we do, to avoid misunderstandings. Given that the community self moderating itself is fine, as well as that the Gentoo context is clear; if there's something else wrong, where did I do so and why is it so?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1241
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

User: khayyam
Topic: Speed up boot time.
Post: post 7276740
Reason: trolling tomwij for a whole year on the same subject.....
_________________
cat /etc/*-release
Funtoo Linux - baselayout 2.2.0
consider this warning no. 1
https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/666threesixes666&offset=&limit=500&target=666threesixes666
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2760
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
The first paragraph in that "reason with him" talks about how comments make sense in a context (hence read that context to understand me, your interpretation appears based on the second half), about tail chasing (among others I've cut the off-topic tail in the topic; and it looks like it works as the thread is back on-topic), about communication being hard; this very last thing is because I want to bring the thread back on-topic, this entire first paragraph has nothing to do with systemd or relevant topics and thus I'd like to see you stop talking about that there (and here) such that we can bring it back on-topic without the need for a report.

You see that khayyam: really it's about him restraining himself from reporting you. He sounds so reasonable.. he always does, loads and loads of little insinuations dropped in, and then magnanimously pointing out how he hasn't used the big stick, but here it is just in case..
Quote:
The second paragraph is about a funny pink painted neon flashing elephant; if you want to seriously communicate with me, note that such word usage distracts me in trying to understand what you're getting at and that it works better if you do that in private. As you can see, I've tried before too converse with you by sending you a PM; which you then instead publicized as "ramblings", rather than try to (dis)agree on it or ignore it.

That's not publicising your PM: publicising your PM would be if he posted the content. To discuss the fact of your posting him a PM is his right, and so's expressing his opinion of that. As ever you seek to close the down avenues of communication open to the latest user you are bullying, ever so politely and with such lack of insight into the laughably evident contradictions in your own position, that one despairs of getting through to you, and simply gives up.
Quote:
Your last paragraph was more on-topic and I've read and reflected every word of that; however, given that your next response stops just after my first paragraph I wonder if you have read and considered the facts based viewpoint as to why I am listening that I wrote in my last paragraph in response. If you want, we can disagree on whether I listen; but before doing so, consider how that paragraph clarifies that I am listening to you but what you're getting at I don't see (as well as that the continuation from this "misunderstanding" keeps the thread from going back on-topic, which makes me wonder whether you are listening). If you want to disagree, ...

Yes you're the only person who gets to decide what everyone else is allowed to talk about.. *yawn*.
Quote:
Now you report me instead of me reporting you, I've delayed reporting for long as I know you misunderstand me; I'm trying hard to see how I've walked across forum guidelines, as my goal here was to "keep on-topic" and thus why it is labeled as BS? Even when you mention "elliptic reasoning and attempts at confining the discussion" I don't see what you're getting at;

See there you go khayyam: really he should be reporting you, or at least that's the impression he wants to leave in the archive. The behaviour is reminiscent of young "radicals" who think themselves politicised because they've read a book or two, who tend to get used to present the latest position of whichever sect they're in thrall to atm. Typically they go off for more instructions when the arguments haven't worked, and come back with a new round of vague. In Tom's case he's been doing it for a while, trolling virtually every user who has expressed a disinclination to use systemd, with smiley faces and little hints of threat in the background, with constant spam posts afaic, that float around in meta-discussion space, because that's better (it's easy to say the right-sounding thing since you're talking in generalities) than acknowledging the points made. To do that would be to accept that are real, sound technical reasons for the decisions of many to avoid systemd and indeed that upstream entirely.

You see it also in the constant edits he makes when he comes back to readjust his posts to make them sound better with hindsight, and in the way he makes a case for something, then retreats back from it and tells everyone else not to talk about it (while mentioning it, and how spiffy it is.) Meantime ofc he's got his position into a long post early on in the thread, and the climbdown much later (along with a quick few mentions of the validity of his position that we're no longer allowed to talk about.) It's blatant politicking and gaming of the forums, imo.

Far preferable to acknowledging the substance of any points made to him, or to display any kind of humility. No instead we're treated to the delightful spectacle of him winding up yet another user, then retreating into metaphysical discussion that no-one else is interested in. He's very good at playing this game, and seems to take enjoyment in the reaction of others.
Quote:
none of your posts give an example, it is steveL's interruption early on in the thread that changed how things went and otherwise it would have gone fine (for details, read my response to your last paragraph).

hah as usual you try to drag me into it, and as usual it's a sly assertion dropped in, so you can drip-drip your toxic position into the collective background. Not happening. It's your interrruptions in an otherwise amicable thread at this point, which are causing the hassle. As has been made abundantly clear it's very unlikely that Gentoo will switch its "default init" to systemd. The reasons have been gone over several times in that thread, and yet you refuse to let it die. People are using their forums in the way they're meant to: to chat with other people on whatever topic the conversation leads to, but you can't accept that, and instead wish to hold everyone to some martinet's idea of what they should discuss, and what to think.

After all any time someone thinks something different than the position you wish to present and the agenda which you openly wish to pursue, you drown them in tedious dissections of every word they write, and hold them to some spurious standard of a school debating-club, instead of letting them relax in their own community.
Quote:
If you want to see what you claim to be BS as stopped; then stopping telling me in that topic, and it stops right away (as evidenced by all the last on-topic posts) as well as that on-topic makes my participation lower as promised.

Promises promises.. please do attempt to lower the amount of tedious, detailed point-by-point rebuttals of arguments that weren't even made, and allusions to the big stick you think you hold.

In passing I note that your position there is much the same as: "If you want me to stop hitting you, stop making me angry.. See, I haven't beat you today, because you've been good."
Quote:
If you want a constructive discussion about your topic.. Your topic could be explained in private or #gentoo-forums on IRC rather than in that (and this) thread, as you can see from how it is and will be received.

Yes the abusive always want the abuse discussed in private, while they continue to abuse their victims in public, in order to show what a big man they are. Too late: it's out in public because your behaviour is in public. If you don't like that, try considering the points made to you. Since we all know that's not going to happen, because you've shown zero willingness to do that in the past, beyond dissection which kills the subject, take some time out, or see a counsellor. I don't know what your problem is, and I don't care; it's none of my business. Your behaviour is, since it affects me, because you seem to think I'm fair game for any random shot you care to throw, and because you are killing the spirit of the forums. Every thread you are involved with that I've seen recently has ended up with rambling dissection of other users' posts, wherein you act like some kind of Napoleon. You've been told several times by different users that it's not on. You seem to take perverse pleasure in someone telling you they want no more discourse with you, and ignore their wishes as if your own are the only which count.

We don't need you to tell us what to discuss, what to think, and what to say, nor do you have a clue about what "self-moderation" means. It means disciplining yourself, not taking it upon yourself to tell everyone else what to do. That's why self-insight is required: and contrary to your limpid assertion that it's not relevant to these forums, it is always relevant to everything you do, and most especially to interactions with other people. Which is what the users whose enjoyment of the forums you keep ruining are: people, just as important as you. Far more important afaic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John R. Graham
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 7853
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gah. Folks, the reporting thread is for reporting, not for soliloquy.

- John
_________________
This space intentionally left blank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
The topic is about systemd in the context of Gentoo, as in "When (and if) Gentoo will switch to systemd?"; alongside that, it is in the "Other Things Gentoo" forum [...]

... and this is where I get to deliver my final, and deadly, blow to your argument: you do not get to decide if systemd/upstream's "very strict policy" is relevant in the context of "gentoo" or not. Similarly, you do not get to decide if others countering what you write in a thread is "on topic" or not ... and more ... you are not provided cart blanche to wave the rule stick about as a weapon to silence any discussion that doesn't meet with your standard of what is, or isn't, "on-topic", etc, etc. Your are not an arbiter of gentoo users discussions on the forum, regardless of what role you occupy within the gentoo project.

TomWij wrote:
[...] even Krinn's post is about Gentoo; therefore it is being discussed in the context of Gentoo and requested by multiple people to be brought back on-topic (as the moderators expressed they want the community to do self moderation), if that is perceived as a "very strict policy" then that perception ignores the context that it is written in.

This is another of your word replays/context switching ... the "very strict policy" had a context, namely "with systemd we have a very strict policy: we want to gently push the distros to standardize on the same components for the base system." So, nothing about my "perceiving" anything about what was said in relation to the discussion.

TomWij wrote:
The same I perceive to be happening here; which makes your convincing come over as a misunderstanding where repeating yourself yields no progress, this is because the original context isn't referred to with references and/or examples but rather appears to be omitted. "Facts, who needs them"; we do, to avoid misunderstandings. Given that the community self moderating itself is fine, as well as that the Gentoo context is clear; if there's something else wrong, where did I do so and why is it so?

Round and round we go ... again, more of your loop-de-loop, the "fact" referred to was upsteam policy. You have stated that this *fact* is not relevant in a discussion of "gentoo" (even if that discussion is about gentoo *and* systemd). You presented a claim to "facts based viewpoint[s]" but then confine the facts to only those facts you want to enter the discussion ... hence my "facts, who needs them". Now, we're told we need facts, just not those facts, they are irrelevant to the discussion ... round and round.

@mods ... again, can something be done about this? I've about exhausted all that is possible to say without continually repeating myself. The key issue here is not the discussion per-se, but that Tom feels himself to have the authority to dictate the "rules" and wield them against any and every statement he disagrees with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
[...] you do not get to decide [...]


How are my opinions and/or facts a decision?

khayyam wrote:
[...] the "very strict policy" had a context, namely "with systemd we have a very strict policy: we want to gently push the distros to standardize on the same components for the base system." [...]


What makes this policy about (the context) systemd on Gentoo?

khayyam wrote:
[...] Round and round we go ... again, more of your loop-de-loop, the "fact" referred to was upsteam policy. [...]


Where is it decided that this policy directly applies to what Gentoo does?

steveL wrote:
[...] We don't need you to tell us [...], [...] what to say, [...]. [...]


Neither do I need the same from you (although feedback is welcome through PM), your request asks of me to not do what your request itself does (as well as what the rests of your posts do); you are repeating what you have been repeating for months resulting in several split and locked threads, it has already been acknowledged, reflected and/or debunked in most of them, let us agree to (dis)agree and have a nice day.


Last edited by TomWij on Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:45 pm; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eeyrjmr
n00b
n00b


Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:
TomWij wrote:
The first paragraph in that "reason with him" talks about how comments make sense in a context (hence read that context to understand me, your interpretation appears based on the second half), about tail chasing (among others I've cut the off-topic tail in the topic; and it looks like it works as the thread is back on-topic), about communication being hard; this very last thing is because I want to bring the thread back on-topic, this entire first paragraph has nothing to do with systemd or relevant topics and thus I'd like to see you stop talking about that there (and here) such that we can bring it back on-topic without the need for a report.

You see that khayyam: really it's about him restraining himself from reporting you. He sounds so reasonable.. he always does, loads and loads of little insinuations dropped in, and then magnanimously pointing out how he hasn't used the big stick, but here it is just in case..
Quote:
The second paragraph is about a funny pink painted neon flashing elephant; if you want to seriously communicate with me, note that such word usage distracts me in trying to understand what you're getting at and that it works better if you do that in private. As you can see, I've tried before too converse with you by sending you a PM; which you then instead publicized as "ramblings", rather than try to (dis)agree on it or ignore it.

That's not publicising your PM: publicising your PM would be if he posted the content. To discuss the fact of your posting him a PM is his right, and so's expressing his opinion of that. As ever you seek to close the down avenues of communication open to the latest user you are bullying, ever so politely and with such lack of insight into the laughably evident contradictions in your own position, that one despairs of getting through to you, and simply gives up.
Quote:
Your last paragraph was more on-topic and I've read and reflected every word of that; however, given that your next response stops just after my first paragraph I wonder if you have read and considered the facts based viewpoint as to why I am listening that I wrote in my last paragraph in response. If you want, we can disagree on whether I listen; but before doing so, consider how that paragraph clarifies that I am listening to you but what you're getting at I don't see (as well as that the continuation from this "misunderstanding" keeps the thread from going back on-topic, which makes me wonder whether you are listening). If you want to disagree, ...

Yes you're the only person who gets to decide what everyone else is allowed to talk about.. *yawn*.
Quote:
Now you report me instead of me reporting you, I've delayed reporting for long as I know you misunderstand me; I'm trying hard to see how I've walked across forum guidelines, as my goal here was to "keep on-topic" and thus why it is labeled as BS? Even when you mention "elliptic reasoning and attempts at confining the discussion" I don't see what you're getting at;

See there you go khayyam: really he should be reporting you, or at least that's the impression he wants to leave in the archive. The behaviour is reminiscent of young "radicals" who think themselves politicised because they've read a book or two, who tend to get used to present the latest position of whichever sect they're in thrall to atm. Typically they go off for more instructions when the arguments haven't worked, and come back with a new round of vague. In Tom's case he's been doing it for a while, trolling virtually every user who has expressed a disinclination to use systemd, with smiley faces and little hints of threat in the background, with constant spam posts afaic, that float around in meta-discussion space, because that's better (it's easy to say the right-sounding thing since you're talking in generalities) than acknowledging the points made. To do that would be to accept that are real, sound technical reasons for the decisions of many to avoid systemd and indeed that upstream entirely.

You see it also in the constant edits he makes when he comes back to readjust his posts to make them sound better with hindsight, and in the way he makes a case for something, then retreats back from it and tells everyone else not to talk about it (while mentioning it, and how spiffy it is.) Meantime ofc he's got his position into a long post early on in the thread, and the climbdown much later (along with a quick few mentions of the validity of his position that we're no longer allowed to talk about.) It's blatant politicking and gaming of the forums, imo.

Far preferable to acknowledging the substance of any points made to him, or to display any kind of humility. No instead we're treated to the delightful spectacle of him winding up yet another user, then retreating into metaphysical discussion that no-one else is interested in. He's very good at playing this game, and seems to take enjoyment in the reaction of others.
Quote:
none of your posts give an example, it is steveL's interruption early on in the thread that changed how things went and otherwise it would have gone fine (for details, read my response to your last paragraph).

hah as usual you try to drag me into it, and as usual it's a sly assertion dropped in, so you can drip-drip your toxic position into the collective background. Not happening. It's your interrruptions in an otherwise amicable thread at this point, which are causing the hassle. As has been made abundantly clear it's very unlikely that Gentoo will switch its "default init" to systemd. The reasons have been gone over several times in that thread, and yet you refuse to let it die. People are using their forums in the way they're meant to: to chat with other people on whatever topic the conversation leads to, but you can't accept that, and instead wish to hold everyone to some martinet's idea of what they should discuss, and what to think.

After all any time someone thinks something different than the position you wish to present and the agenda which you openly wish to pursue, you drown them in tedious dissections of every word they write, and hold them to some spurious standard of a school debating-club, instead of letting them relax in their own community.
Quote:
If you want to see what you claim to be BS as stopped; then stopping telling me in that topic, and it stops right away (as evidenced by all the last on-topic posts) as well as that on-topic makes my participation lower as promised.

Promises promises.. please do attempt to lower the amount of tedious, detailed point-by-point rebuttals of arguments that weren't even made, and allusions to the big stick you think you hold.

In passing I note that your position there is much the same as: "If you want me to stop hitting you, stop making me angry.. See, I haven't beat you today, because you've been good."
Quote:
If you want a constructive discussion about your topic.. Your topic could be explained in private or #gentoo-forums on IRC rather than in that (and this) thread, as you can see from how it is and will be received.

Yes the abusive always want the abuse discussed in private, while they continue to abuse their victims in public, in order to show what a big man they are. Too late: it's out in public because your behaviour is in public. If you don't like that, try considering the points made to you. Since we all know that's not going to happen, because you've shown zero willingness to do that in the past, beyond dissection which kills the subject, take some time out, or see a counsellor. I don't know what your problem is, and I don't care; it's none of my business. Your behaviour is, since it affects me, because you seem to think I'm fair game for any random shot you care to throw, and because you are killing the spirit of the forums. Every thread you are involved with that I've seen recently has ended up with rambling dissection of other users' posts, wherein you act like some kind of Napoleon. You've been told several times by different users that it's not on. You seem to take perverse pleasure in someone telling you they want no more discourse with you, and ignore their wishes as if your own are the only which count.

We don't need you to tell us what to discuss, what to think, and what to say, nor do you have a clue about what "self-moderation" means. It means disciplining yourself, not taking it upon yourself to tell everyone else what to do. That's why self-insight is required: and contrary to your limpid assertion that it's not relevant to these forums, it is always relevant to everything you do, and most especially to interactions with other people. Which is what the users whose enjoyment of the forums you keep ruining are: people, just as important as you. Far more important afaic.
condescending/non-constructive to discussions at hand
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4174
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John R. Graham wrote:
Gah. Folks, the reporting thread is for reporting, not for soliloquy.

- John
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-689316-start-0.html
_________________
A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. Where men have the habit of liberty, the Press will continue to be the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2392
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eeyrjmr wrote:
condescending/non-constructive to discussions at hand


:lol: Tail chasing amphigory isn't a discussion :lol:

Just more silliness that might or might not be amusing. :wink:
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] you do not get to decide [...]

How are my opinions and/or facts a decision?

So all your "keep on topic", and "not relevant to topic" is for dramatic purposes? Your not *deciding* what the topic is, and what is relavant to that topic, *at all* your just *gently* steering the topic back on track?

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] the "very strict policy" had a context, namely "with systemd we have a very strict policy: we want to gently push the distros to standardize on the same components for the base system." [...]

What makes this policy about (the context) systemd on Gentoo?

Should I re-quote you and this "very strict policy", or would your switcheroo be too obvious:

TomWij wrote:
[...] even Krinn's post is about Gentoo; therefore it is being discussed in the context of Gentoo and requested by multiple people to be brought back on-topic (as the moderators expressed they want the community to do self moderation), if that is perceived as a "very strict policy" then that perception ignores the context that it is written in.

Is this the same "very strict policy" that was referred to above? Note how you've re-used the words but changed the context?

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] Round and round we go ... again, more of your loop-de-loop, the "fact" referred to was upsteam policy. [...]

Where is it decided that this policy directly applies to what Gentoo does?

Again, more word replay ... "policy" or "gentoo" has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
- John .... http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-689316-start-0.html

Naib ... ya, I think I was editing my reply while the thread was moved, and when I noticed I re-posted in this thread and deleted the one in the 'report' thread ... seems JRG was doing the same, so it got a bit weird there for a moment.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] you do not get to decide [...]

How are my opinions and/or facts a decision?

So all your "keep on topic", and "not relevant to topic" is for dramatic purposes?


The former is a quote. the latter a perception; it is for constructive purposes, see previous thread(s) in this forum and the PM for details.

khayyam wrote:
Your not *deciding* what the topic is, and what is relavant to that topic, *at all* your just *gently* steering the topic back on track?


Yes.

khayyam wrote:
Is this the same "very strict policy" that was referred to above? Note how you've re-used the words but changed the context?


Yes, it are now questions.

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] Round and round we go ... again, more of your loop-de-loop, the "fact" referred to was upsteam policy. [...]

Where is it decided that this policy directly applies to what Gentoo does?

Again, more word replay ... "policy" or "gentoo" has nothing to do with what I wrote.


"policy" is mentioned in the deepest quote right above, "gentoo" can be perceived as the context in which the reported thread resides and be seen in its topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
How are my opinions and/or facts a decision?

So all your "keep on topic", and "not relevant to topic" is for dramatic purposes?

The former is a quote. the latter a perception; it is for constructive purposes, see previous thread(s) in this forum and the PM for details.

The former is a quote and the latter is a sumation of statements such as the following: "[t]he meaning of his and your recent posts, as well as the fun brought forward as part of that, have little to do with the context of the on-topic discussion around it" and "the relevancy of what is written compared to the topic of the thread is doubtful, especially when it is about the writers instead of the content."

But that aside ... no "decision" no your part, your just a ("constructive") force of nature?

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Your not *deciding* what the topic is, and what is relavant to that topic, *at all* your just *gently* steering the topic back on track?
Yes.

... and what about those who question your objectivity on the matter, they have no right to raise this in the thread, this would be "off-topic", correct?

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Is this the same "very strict policy" that was referred to above? Note how you've re-used the words but changed the context?

Yes, it are now questions.

"it are now questions"? ... so you quote "very strict policy" as though it was something I had said in relation to the forums/moderation/policy but that was infact the policy of systemd, and now your turning that into "a question" and I guess we skip over the fact that you did some fancy word switcheroo there?

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] Round and round we go ... again, more of your loop-de-loop, the "fact" referred to was upsteam policy. [...]

Where is it decided that this policy directly applies to what Gentoo does?

Again, more word replay ... "policy" or "gentoo" has nothing to do with what I wrote.

"policy" is mentioned in the deepest quote right above, "gentoo" can be perceived as the context in which the reported thread resides and be seen in its topic.

If you re-read what I'd written it was directed at the question of "fact based viewpoints" so we are not discussing "policy" or "gentoo" ... though those are also words.

Again, and again, your just throwing out words and making up contexts in which these words might operate ... though this context has nothing to do with what I wrote (other than including the same words). This is what I have consistantly refered to as "word replay".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32166
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why does the whole systemd discussion remind me of this?
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2392
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Why does the whole systemd discussion remind me of this


:lol: Oh I love Monty Python

Know what I mean? :wink:
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
But that aside ... no "decision" no your part, [...]


How are those opinions a decision?

khayyam wrote:
[...] your just a ("constructive") force of nature?


This can lead to a whole discussion on its own covering various fields like physics, religion and even politics; hence there is no definitive answer, other than that it is for constructive purposes. What are your thoughts on this?

khayyam wrote:
... and what about those who question your objectivity on the matter, they have no right to raise this in the thread, this would be "off-topic", correct?


They do, as that is their opinion; whether it is on-topic or off-topic is an opinion as well. What happens to a topic if people disagree on what the topic is? How do we resolve that?

khayyam wrote:
"it are now questions"? ... so you quote "very strict policy" as though it was something I had said in relation to the forums/moderation/policy but that was infact the policy of systemd, and now your turning that into "a question" and I guess we skip over the fact that you did some fancy word switcheroo there?


Yes, I did; can you answer them to clarify the misunderstanding?

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] Round and round we go ... again, more of your loop-de-loop, the "fact" referred to was upsteam policy. [...]

Where is it decided that this policy directly applies to what Gentoo does?

Again, more word replay ... "policy" or "gentoo" has nothing to do with what I wrote.

"policy" is mentioned in the deepest quote right above, "gentoo" can be perceived as the context in which the reported thread resides and be seen in its topic.

If you re-read what I'd written it was directed at the question of "fact based viewpoints" so we are not discussing "policy" or "gentoo" ... though those are also words.


"fact" refers to policy as mentioned in the deepest quote right above; given that "fact" refers to "policy" and "policy" is perceived as being in context of "gentoo", the "fact" is also perceived as being in context of "gentoo". Where is it decided that this fact directly applies to what Gentoo does?

khayyam wrote:
Again, and again, your just throwing out words and making up contexts in which these words might operate ... though this context has nothing to do with what I wrote (other than including the same words). This is what I have consistantly refered to as "word replay".


The context (systemd and Gentoo) present in my opinion, in your opinion it is not present; I think we can disagree on this, given different contexts the words could indeed carry different meanings. This is the basis to a misunderstanding. It seems as if we are trying to agree on a misunderstanding here, whereas its basis has already been disagreed on; I think it is time to come to a point where we can (dis)agree on both, not to point out one as right or wrong, but to point out that our opinions differ. Do you (dis)agree?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While the statement "very strict policy [to] push the distros to standardize on the same components for the base system" was brought forward to be out of the Gentoo context in my opinion; I want you to know explicitly that I disagree with this upstream policy, on my Raspberry Pi I for instance run Epoch and on my laptop I'm moving away from the more heavy GNOME 3 (with GTK+ 3) to MATE (with GTK+ 2), I've also been considering to further cut (for fun) my boot time by perhaps replacing such components by more static solutions (this is a laptop, it won't change any time soon) which could also result in less daemons running and give improvements after the boot, a lot of people from the Gentoo community want to do things like these which makes that statement a fundamentally wrong idea at least when seen from the viewpoint of people that uses Gentoo or a derivation thereof and want to have control over what their system does.

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Why does the whole systemd discussion remind me of this?


That could be because the two smaller fishes could be perceived as modular, whereas the bigger fish could be perceived as big and could be perceived as to consist of one part; however, that one big fish could be perceived as depending on a feature from the other fish at the bottom of the river, or you could perceive it as the other fish at the bottom of the river depending on a feature of the big fish. Big fishes could be perceived to eat big fishes, small fishes could be perceived to eat small fishes; if big eats small it could be perceived to be still hungry, if small eats big it could be perceived as an explosion yet to happen. It can be perceived as remarkable that there are no such food problems pictured; however, one could consider the violence that is pictured as harmful to the tails of those fishes but it could be acceptable given the early stop of the smaller fishes getting hurt and the short life the bigger fish had. Looks like that story could be perceived to have a good ending. Though one should not forget there are bizarre creatures at the bottom of the ocean; or at least, that's what they say there is?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 4339

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
even Krinn's post is about Gentoo; therefore it is being discussed in the context of Gentoo and requested by multiple people to be brought back on-topic (as the moderators expressed they want the community to do self moderation)


How can you even cite me to backup any of your claim, when i didn't report you because i know moderators cannot do anything except moving request on a dead thread and worst, locking thread : and i consider that a win for you.
You answer to my quote by trying to explain Pacho Ramos position isn't what Pacho Ramos has said : this is not my quote, but a quote from Pacho Ramos, i think everyone get clearly what he is saying.
It would be lame, but at least i would find it "logical" to see Pacho Ramos himself comes to explain it wasn't his intention, with some strange excuses to justify that. But you are not Pacho Ramos.
For me, you're again attempting at spreading doubt over readers. Something unacceptable from a user with the dev title if done intentionally.
And doing that on non hypothetical thesis but on a real quote from Pacho Ramos. Removing any doubt you're doing it intentionally.
- qualify Pacho Ramos, a Gentoo dev, a Gnome/systemd dev team as "one individual", so readers may think that quote is from a some random guy.
- you cannot justify he have put a second option "provide as alternative" as something worth mentioning that would cancel his first intention. If you ask 1000$, i deny it, you ask 100$ and then explain : hey look i only asked 100$ i didn't want really 1000$
- Trying to imply his request wasn't made because infra team denied him... Well, no, again, you ask 1000$ if anyone denied you that, you really did ask 1000$

Avoid quoting me to backup your lies.
If a thread is about gentoo and systemd ; than anything related to gentoo and systemd is on topic ; speaking about systemd inside gentoo or not. Just like it is normal to see discussion about LP (as systemd author) or drobbin (as gentoo former) might jump into the discussion. Not because anyone love to speak about them, but because for history, context... they might be part of the subject.
It's also normal TomWij could be part of the discussion, as a gentoo dev, just like any other gentoo dev.

May i remind you i have report you for trying to be moderator before while you're a dev and not a moderator ? Your memory is short.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:
TomWij wrote:
even Krinn's post is about Gentoo


How can you even cite me to backup any of your claim


Unless I'm mistaken, I think it was brought into the discussion by Khayyam. That post post 7520818 could be perceived to have mentions of a stage3, quotes two Gentoo Developers in the context of consideration as a Gentoo default as well as that stage3, then could be perceived to ask whether there was a removal of Gentoo and how Gentoo provides choice; therefore, it could thus be perceived to be about Gentoo in that context?

krinn wrote:
You answer to my quote by trying to explain Pacho Ramos position isn't what Pacho Ramos has said : this is not my quote, but a quote from Pacho Ramos, i think everyone get clearly what he is saying.


Yes. The authors of the quotes were preserved as per "http://... wrote:". Did someone misunderstood that?

krinn wrote:
It would be lame, but at least i would find it "logical" to see Pacho Ramos himself comes to explain it wasn't his intention, with some strange excuses to justify that. But you are not Pacho Ramos.
For me, you're again attempting at spreading doubt over readers. Something unacceptable from a user with the dev title if done intentionally.
And doing that on non hypothetical thesis but on a real quote from Pacho Ramos. Removing any doubt you're doing it intentionally.
- qualify Pacho Ramos, a Gentoo dev, a Gnome/systemd dev team as "one individual", so readers may think that quote is from a some random guy.


Gentoo Developers could be perceived as individuals; presence in a team does not imply that the statement is made from that team, whether that team is systemd or Gentoo as a whole. Compare this to how a statement of a single user doesn't represent the entire user base; however, the statement is still taken into account, until maybe something like a majority vote under the users might override that statement. Or are the statements from the user base (and in extension the teams) to be perceived, supported and implemented in a different way?

krinn wrote:
- you cannot justify he have put a second option "provide as alternative" as something worth mentioning that would cancel his first intention. If you ask 1000$, i deny it, you ask 100$ and then explain : hey look i only asked 100$ i didn't want really 1000$


It's just a note without a justifying value; it could be perceived as certain things, but that perception is up to you. Whereas your perception say it would cancel it can just as well be there as a doubt, as an alternative or perhaps an enumeration; indeed, only he would be able to tell us. Can we agree that this is a misunderstanding?

krinn wrote:
- Trying to imply his request wasn't made because infra team denied him... Well, no, again, you ask 1000$ if anyone denied you that, you really did ask 1000$


Gentoo Developers could be perceived as individuals; [... see above ...]. The infra team could be perceived as still having to vote about the matter when the systemd stage3 is in a further state. Why decide on money without a history of financial statements?

krinn wrote:
If a thread is about gentoo and systemd ; than anything related to gentoo and systemd is on topic ; speaking about systemd inside gentoo or not. Just like it is normal to see discussion about LP (as systemd author) or drobbin (as gentoo former) might jump into the discussion. Not because anyone love to speak about them, but because for history, context... they might be part of the subject.
It's also normal TomWij could be part of the discussion, as a gentoo dev, just like any other gentoo dev.


Well, then I have thought the discussion to be about "systemd on Gentoo", I see what you are getting at; sorry, my excuses, my interest lies in this combined topic and I have perceived this topic to be about that, maybe I should start a new topic about the combined topic instead after I return to the forums after this planned break. As the thread is back on-topic, as well as that I stopped participating in it; can we round off this discussion such that I can stay away from the forums? (Knowing that one of us still have a misunderstanding is keeping me from it.)

krinn wrote:
May i remind you i have report you for trying to be moderator before while you're a dev and not a moderator ? Your memory is short.


While it's not on memory due to the volume of content, I do remind it; the community doing self-moderation can be perceived as an acceptable expectation by the moderators as stated in an earlier thread, beyond that, I avoid reporting at all cost these days. Thank you for this insightful post. Is there something else that I also misunderstood in the above?


Last edited by TomWij on Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
But that aside ... no "decision" no your part, [...]

How are those opinions a decision?

Such semantic quibblings are nothing but an attempt to divert the focus away from the discussion at hand ... what was said:

khayyam wrote:
you do not get to decide if systemd/upstream's "very strict policy" is relevant in the context of "gentoo" or not. Similarly, you do not get to decide if others countering what you write in a thread is "on topic" or not ... and more ... you are not provided cart blanche to wave the rule stick about as a weapon to silence any discussion that doesn't meet with your standard of what is, or isn't, "on-topic", etc

... now, you can flap your hands in the air and turn semantic cartwheels all you want but you were making an assertion about the "rules", and making judgements about whether others where inline with these rules. If you want to now claim you were just voicing your "opinions" then this is nothing but disengeniousness on your part.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] your just a ("constructive") force of nature?

This can lead to a whole discussion on its own covering various fields like physics, religion and even politics; hence there is no definitive answer, other than that it is for constructive purposes. What are your thoughts on this?

Well, my thought was rather simple; I was challenging your seeming objectivity on all things relating to "the rules", but behind that I was also aiming at your unreflexive sense of the "constructive", as what I see coming from your side is either dictatorial assertion, or wilful twisting and turning with little in the way of actual communication.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
... and what about those who question your objectivity on the matter, they have no right to raise this in the thread, this would be "off-topic", correct?

They do, as that is their opinion; whether it is on-topic or off-topic is an opinion as well. What happens to a topic if people disagree on what the topic is? How do we resolve that?

So all this is just a matter of opinion, no truth can be established? Note in the above I'm referring to the "right" to challenge another's assertion, that is not to say that there can be no resolution, or that no criteria can be established that makes clear what the truth of a given situation is.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
"it are now questions"? ... so you quote "very strict policy" as though it was something I had said in relation to the forums/moderation/policy but that was in fact the policy of systemd, and now your turning that into "a question" and I guess we skip over the fact that you did some fancy word switcheroo there?

Yes, I did; can you answer them to clarify the misunderstanding?

I'm not sure what you want from me in that regard, or what it is you want me to clarify. My elaboration was entirely to show you how you had replayed the words (though not simply in that instance) and how impossible it was to have any kind of dialogue with you doing so. So, rather than introduce questions (which at this late stage I don't really see the point of) just take it as an object lesson on the true nature of dialogue.

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
If you re-read what I'd written it was directed at the question of "fact based viewpoints" so we are not discussing "policy" or "gentoo" ... though those are also words.

"fact" refers to policy as mentioned in the deepest quote right above; given that "fact" refers to "policy" and "policy" is perceived as being in context of "gentoo", the "fact" is also perceived as being in context of "gentoo". Where is it decided that this fact directly applies to what Gentoo does?

This is just you spinning on words ... and really, I've gone over this. I'll quote the very beginning so we can establish what "fact" is here referenced:

khayyam wrote:
Its interesting that you invoke this "facts based viewpoint" particularly as you've already confined the facts to those you narrowly allow as "on-topic".

So, let me ask, what "fact" I'm I referring to? The "facts you [...] allow as on-topic", perhaps? I later state that the "existence of a very strict policy" (systemd's) is a fact, but that is entirely in reference to you seeing this as irrelevant to the discussion at hand. "Gentoo" or "policy" or (any combination of gentoo/policy/systemd) I never mentioned or alluded to. So, its entirely about what *you* are allowing/excluding in the discussion, the question of the policy itself, what relation/effect it may or may not have on gentoo, never came into it (it was after all, "off-topic").

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Again, and again, your just throwing out words and making up contexts in which these words might operate ... though this context has nothing to do with what I wrote (other than including the same words). This is what I have consistently referred to as "word replay".

The context (systemd and Gentoo) present in my opinion, in your opinion it is not present; I think we can disagree on this, given different contexts the words could indeed carry different meanings. This is the basis to a misunderstanding. It seems as if we are trying to agree on a misunderstanding here, whereas its basis has already been disagreed on; I think it is time to come to a point where we can (dis)agree on both, not to point out one as right or wrong, but to point out that our opinions differ. Do you (dis)agree?

You threw all this out at the get go, we didn't get to discuss "systemd and gentoo" it was "off-topic" remember. Now you want to paint it as a misunderstanding, or disagreement on "meanings", you're completely overlooking the fact that we didn't have *that* discussion, the discussion we had and are having is about your slamming the door shut and pointing me at the forum guidelines calling "keep on topic". This is really spinning the word fantastic ...

khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2245

PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Why does the whole systemd discussion remind me of this?

hehe ... "I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?" :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Note: See my response to the last quote, I've discovered something you were trying to tell me early and apologize; the rest of this post is kept for completeness, but I am in doubt if it needs further discussion.

khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
How are those opinions a decision?

Such semantic quibblings are nothing but an attempt to divert the focus away from the discussion at hand [...]


It is an attempt at trying to understand you (hence asking questions), given that you claim that I decide things; so, can you clarify how those opinions are a decision?

khayyam wrote:
Well, my thought was rather simple; I was challenging your seeming objectivity on all things relating to "the rules", but behind that I was also aiming at your unreflexive sense of the "constructive", as what I see coming from your side is either dictatorial assertion, or wilful twisting and turning with little in the way of actual communication.


That is another semantic way of saying that I decide, although they appear to be opinions; can you answer the above "how" question such that I understand what you mean?

khayyam wrote:
So all this is just a matter of opinion, no truth can be established?

Yes, it is such a matter. Why do you think that about establishing the truth? Opinions can be turned into group decisions in a constructive way.

khayyam wrote:
So, rather than introduce questions (which at this late stage I don't really see the point of) just take it as an object lesson on the true nature of dialogue.


Questions are asked per the above mentioned attempt; to understand what you tell me, I need to understand how it is perceived as a decision as well as how the context is determined to be different.

khayyam wrote:
This is just you spinning on words ... and really, I've gone over this. I'll quote the very beginning so we can establish what "fact" is here referenced:


A "fact" can mean about anything; let's assume for a moment we're mathematicians, if I were to tell you we're talking about a sequence when we've spoken about multiple sequences, then what sequence would I be talking about? It becomes more favorable for a constructive discussion to say "the Fibonacci sequence" instead of "the sequence"; the former is clear right away, the latter requires quite some backtracking and gives a lot of room for human error. Even with you clarifying "fact" just now; I would have to go through most of the discussion again to see what you've associated with it, and even doing that I doubt if I'll get it right every time.

khayyam wrote:
"Gentoo" or "policy" or (any combination of gentoo/policy/systemd) I never mentioned or alluded to. So, its entirely about what *you* are allowing/excluding in the discussion, the question of the policy itself, what relation/effect it may or may not have on gentoo, never came into it (it was after all, "off-topic").


Eh, yes, you didn't mention it explicitly as I perceived us as discussing Krinn's post here as you have brought that post forward. One of both facts you bring up is from that post, and that fact talks about an upstream "policy"; "gentoo" can be seen in the rest of that post, as well as the category and topic of the thread and "gentoo" here is indeed not mentioned by you (but could be perceived as indirectly part of the context by your mention of Krinn's post).

khayyam wrote:
You threw all this out at the get go, we didn't get to discuss "systemd and gentoo" it was "off-topic" remember. Now you want to paint it as a misunderstanding, or disagreement on "meanings",


Misunderstandings and disagreements can lead to each other.

khayyam wrote:
you're completely overlooking the fact that we didn't have *that* discussion, the discussion we had and are having is about your slamming the door shut and pointing me at the forum guidelines calling "keep on topic". This is really spinning the word fantastic ...


Bear with me as I read it through: Your first reply was responded to in a serious way, your second reply was read over too fast and I perceived this as more specification for a forum implementation which needs someone to implement it and thus I told you to bring it to the forum feedback, in your third reply I was distracted as I didn't even read the quote and perceived this to totally be about steveL which even in your fourth reply which clarifies how it is not meta talk didn't became clear to me; then in the post based on the the recent posts in both that thread and the reporting thread it is pretty much dumb for me to remove those quotes as they distract me away of what you try to tell to me. The moment after I perceived your post in the reporting thread as well as the one before to be about steveL, I was pretty much boiled up to quit the forums for considering you to add water to a heat that was nearly quenched; but I misunderstood that, you were not doing such thing there at that point. After that point I wanted to steer the topic back on-topic and leave it; after some posts this happened and succeeded, and I've stopped replying in it afterwards. But I didn't leave the forums yet, as apparently I see now that it was I that had a misunderstanding; it took me till now to figure that out. Knowing that one of us is misunderstanding it, I had to figure this out; I've been looking at a different picture all this time...

However, if I had earlier seen that you were making irony / satire in one of your first replies, none of any of the later replies would have taken place; the door is wide open for you, but it appears now that I was in another room.

Thanks for bringing up *that* discussion; sorry, I apologize for missing that what I perceived as forum improvements wasn't meant to be serious. Lesson learned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Forums Feedback All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum