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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Forums Feedback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
saellaven
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 308

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
saellaven ...

can you please not assit tom in redirecting this discussion away from the subject at hand: his behavior.

best ... khay


mods, feel free to split tom's and my discussion... it kind of diverged from my original post here where I called him out for behaving in the frustrating manner that I believe is a broader problem with several devs, but both are discussions that should be had publicly and neither should be used to detract from the seriousness of the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
TomWij wrote:
As demonstrated in my previous post, the opinions are in no way deciding or policing over others

khayyam wrote:
A "demonstration" means that is has been shown to be true, factual, etc ... not the absence of a refutation.

Yes, therefore to show it to be true I'm asking for your demonstration to make me understand why you see it as such; I've given my demonstration to demonstrate why it is false, which you have snipped out as irrelevant. Until the requested demonstrate and/or acknowledgement are given, it appears we are done talking and simply agree to disagree; as the lack of demonstration and/or acknowledgment yields repetition and word replay instead of a better understanding.

"As demonstated in my previous post", you provided a link to that post, there is no "demonstration" ... so where was it "demonstated" again? Oh, you've "[...] given [your] demonstration to demonstrate why it is false" ... you're sophistry knows no bounds ... its just laughable.

... and nice word replay with the "word replay" ... though again the context is changed ... but that its your great "constructive" contribution.


Last edited by khayyam on Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

saellaven wrote:
I've said before that, due to the politicking at the organization level, I won't become a Gentoo dev... I'm not going to waste all my time playing petty games because someone wants their ego stroked. It's the same reason why I don't edit stuff at wikipedia - the insiders own the game and will use and create rules to frustrate anyone that comes in with fresh ideas simply because those ideas, even if far superior, threaten the current orthodoxy.


Yes, I think I undestand what you're getting at; years ago I was working on bringing information about which public transport lines exist to Wikipedia, that has then later been rejected as non encyclopedic material and was removed. Looking again today, I see that someone has made those pages again; makes me only wonder when they will be rejected once again, or maybe someone did manage to show them to be encyclopedic material. Gentoo is kind of a "you get what you get"; given meetings are mostly monthly, and a lot of things happen on the lower level, and we have less often PMS releases and things like that, progress and/or change happens less often as you would like to, you are kind of in a setting that has been there stable for months to years.

saellaven wrote:
I have considered forking Gentoo myself, but it's a lot of work for one person to maintain... Gentoo has one thing on it's side - inertia.


True, a fork will require finding a lot of like-minded people and a lot of energy put into recruiting; but don't forget that Gentoo's mentality is there to "be there for those who need it" and not become the popular distribution, a fork kind of would have this kind of nature too: If the fork is of interest, like-minded people will find and contribute to it given they are able to find it and recruited.

saellaven wrote:
The political structure has undoubtedly caused people to leave and prevented other people, like myself, from joining in the first place. Most devs will admit that the #1 need of Gentoo is more devs to help maintain the tree (and some herds in particular), but nothing is ever really done to change the structure to be more inviting to new devs other than navel gazing. And that, in itself, might be the appeal to some devs, of systemd, in that it overtakes most of userspace, obviating some of the need to have more devs since everything is done the one true way.


Yeah, the structure is quite solid; for it to change, I think it'll be a similar moment to "chapter eleven" in bankruptcy, it's at that point one realizes that a new approach has to be taken. Or, no approach at all; given a fork might already have taken such an approach and became popular, like [insert some Gentoo fork here]. Who knows there is a movement in Gentoo that would do its best to not let a fork become more popular than Gentoo itself...

saellaven wrote:
At the end of the day, I want my systems to just work... and I ran my own LFS type system for almost a decade before finally letting Gentoo automate some of that for me. I don't need to waste time playing politics (in fact, I run a forum dedicated to political discussion, so I don't need to seek out another venue) or getting caught up in debates just for the sake of having a debate. If what I do ends up helping other people, that's great, but I'm not going to mire myself in endless stress because I just want my system to work, I don't need my ego stroked or need to add a line on my resume to try to lend myself more credibility.

But, particularly in this area of Linux these days, that's all that exists is politics - people will talk around technical merits but they never debate the actual technical merits of decisions, they shout past each other or re-re-re-link FUD that's already been debunked. I'm not in high school or college, I have an actual life to live and I'm not going to take away from the quality of my life to play the games. It's pretty ridiculous how much time I've already had to waste in the last year because of other people imposing political decisions on my system and the time I do spend now is mostly meant to prevent even larger headaches from the same crowd in the future.

It's actually a pretty sad state of affairs that things have come to this... and how pathetic is it that we have to talk about maintaining a fork of openrc, over a few line patch, solely because the lead refused to add functionality to it and instead, abused his influence to cripple the entire distro at a political level? I reiterate, how much extra work, wasted time, and animosity was created solely because of him and his arrogance?


+1 on the general thought; when someone asked for an objective view on systemd earlier on the #gentoo IRC chat, I gave them this response: "That's the whole point about it; you'll find a large amount of people stating things, you'll also find a large amount of people debunking things. The net result being that you'll have to see for yourself; really, the truth is hidden in all the noise, unless you consider the truth to be those statements or the debunking thereof." after which I pointed him at the Debian communication mediums where summaries of these viewpoints can be found, as well as the Debian CTTE; as for a link to demonstrate how a bit more technical discussion goes, though still quite political, I've linked to http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/jeu.php?id_proces=57684 (note: this is long; I've been through it, only do it if you are really interested spending time on it).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
"As demonstated in my previous post", you provided a link to that post, there is no "demonstration" ... so where was it "demonstated" again? Oh, you've "[...] given [your] demonstration to demonstrate why it is false" ... you're sophistry knows no bounds ... its just laughable.

... and nice word replay with the "word replay" ... though again the context is changed ... but that its your great "constructive" contribution.


The context indeed has changed again through that word replay, as we are now laughing about demonstrations instead of discussing a constructive demonstration that reveals how those off-topics opinions of mine are decisions; discussing such a constructive demonstration is a necessity to make me understand what you mean by that, as well as how you consider it to be the truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
[...] you're sophistry knows no bounds ... its just laughable.

The context indeed has changed again through that word replay, as we are now laughing about demonstrations instead of discussing a constructive demonstration that reveals how those off-topics opinions of mine are decisions; discussing such a constructive demonstration is a necessity to make me understand what you mean by that, as well as how you consider it to be the truth.

... more sophistry, word replay, and misdirection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
... more sophistry, word replay, and misdirection.

... more sophistry, word replay, misdirection and ... repetition ... thats the best we've come up with so far. Given no further understanding will be achieved here, have a nice day...


Last edited by TomWij on Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:50 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
... more sophistry, word replay, and misdirection.

... more sophistry, word replay, and misdirection.

... repetition, false accusations, misdirection, trolling ... and now editing of post subsequent to a reply to make it seem as though you didn't just repeat what I had said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
"As demonstated in my previous post", you provided a link to that post, there is no "demonstration" ... so where was it "demonstated" again? Oh, you've "[...] given [your] demonstration to demonstrate why it is false" ... you're sophistry knows no bounds ... its just laughable.

... and nice word replay with the "word replay" ... though again the context is changed ... but that its your great "constructive" contribution.

The context indeed has changed again through that word replay, as we are now laughing about demonstrations instead of discussing a constructive demonstration that reveals how those off-topics opinions of mine are decisions; discussing such a constructive demonstration is a necessity to make me understand what you mean by that, as well as how you consider it to be the truth.

This post requires some analysis, not because its worth replying to, it simply isn't, but it shows Tom doing what he does best. So, given I can't think why I should have some kind of dialogue with him, let me present a small breakdown of the above for the benefit of others reading ... noting that anything Tom has to say in reply will be treated in a similar manner to the last few posts (ie, simply describe what the post involves).

The first thing to notice is the relation (or lack thereof) between what I present and Tom's response, the mythical "demonstration" which, if you go back through prior posts was the actual point of contention, has become this "discussing such a constructive demonstration", but where is the "demonstration" that was claimed ... lost under repeated word replay, misdirection, and avoidance.

The second thing to notice is the word replay, I say "laughable", he says "laughable", I say "context", he says "context" (and so on) but this word use bares no relation to what was actually said ... what was "laughable"? ... Tom's sophistic reasoning, but no, "we are now laughing about demonstrations". What "context had changed"? ... the context in which certain words were used, but no, the "context indeed has changed again through that word replay".

The other obvious thing to note is the following misdirection. I point to his sophistic reasoning, and failure to provide this "demonstration" he'd supposedly "given", but rather than respond to the this he wants that we should be "discussing a constructive demonstration that reveals how those off-topics opinions of mine are decisions".

The rest is mostly fluff constructed of words taken from various contexts to provide the seeming illusion that our words, statements, etc, are related to each other (and so form a dialogue).

My assessment of this thread so far is that its practically impossible to have any kind of reasoned discussion with Tom, the work involved in attempting to correct each and every twist is just too much to contend with. With each new post that chance of dialogue becomes further diluted until finally Tom sees fit to play the "it takes two", "done talking", "agree to disagree", cards and then resort to reposting exactly what I'd written in reply (though he's since edited this post to make it seem otherwise).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want a reasoned discussion instead of repetition, then please answer the multiple questions that I have put forward to you; to clarify what you speak of is the truth, as well as to clarify to me what you're talking about. My assessment is that this discussion doesn't reference to what has happened, which references are what those questions attempt to unlock; and therefore, for the benefit of others reading, it could be perceived among other things as false accusations and trolling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
If you want a reasoned discussion instead of repetition, then please answer the multiple questions that I have put forward to you; to clarify what you speak of is the truth, as well as to clarify to me what you're talking about.

I have been providing nothing but reasons, but your replies are such that a "discussion" is, as I said, impossible. As for "instead of repetition", you constantly replay words changing the context and ignore the substance of what it is your supposed to be replying to, so you haven't actually presented anything that *wasn't* repetition, misdirection, etc. You then expect of me to "answer the multiple questions [...] put forward" like some kind of *real* dialogue was in progress when you continually sabotage such a dialogue. Now you ask that I "please" answer your "demonstration" (sic), (a "demonstration" that you've yet to acknowledge *wasn't* a demonstration but merely a question ... and a misdirected question at that). So, why should I do this, its not like we're having a dialogue and you might actually respond to the substance of what I write.

Fortunately I have a PhD in philosophy (philosophy of law to be exact) and specialised in the epistemology of law, so I can spot your kind of sophistry a mile off ... the legal profession is full of it.

TomWij wrote:
My assessment is that this discussion doesn't reference to what has happened, which references are what those questions attempt to unlock; and therefore, for the benefit of others reading, it could be perceived among other things as false accusations and trolling.

Hehe, might "perceive" this as "false accusations and trolling"? You've done your best to muddy the water so that anyone reading probably doesn't have the stamina to follow. I, on the other hand, have stuck steadfastly to the idea that a dialogue involves replying to the substance of what the other has written, and on each reply have pretty much done just that. I can't claim that every point I have tried to make has been flawless, or as clear as it possibly could be, but I've done pretty damn good at countering your twists. I hope anyone reading can make that distinction, if not then there was probably nothing I might have said otherwise that could change that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
Fortunately I have a PhD in philosophy (philosophy of law to be exact) and specialised in the epistemology of law, so I can spot your kind of sophistry a mile off ... the legal profession is full of it.


That makes it more clear. The opinions are decisions to you because they are read as if they were the law, a twist or the opposite thereof; however, we're not talking about the law here, what is "a different viewpoint" to me is "sophistry" to you because you consider this to be in a context of law. If we get back to the context of trying to understand each other and coming to a constructive agreement; then, questions can be used to make clear as to what you are talking about to me such that we can learn from it and come to a constructive agreement.

The substance to me are these questions that I ask about your view of the substance; as they are the only way to get facts, references as well as explanation from you regarding what you write. And replies that answer these questions were unanswered for a long time; it is only now that your explanation of having studied the "philosophy of law" made part of it clear as to why you see them as such, per the previous paragraph. These questions of mine are labeled as "twists" that "counter" as if I were exercising loopholes in a law; however, these questions just want to know the details behind your viewpoint. Therefore I thank you for partially answering one of the questions.

khayyam wrote:
So, why should I do this, its not like we're having a dialogue and you might actually respond to the substance of what I write.


The reason that you might do this is because you might think that there is a reason as to why I fail to consume the substance of the argument; earlier in this thread, I highlighted how I did continue in that very same way to identify one (of possibly more) misunderstanding(s).

An example regarding consumption of the substance from the software engineering world is that a software engineer needs to carry two hats, the "user" hat and the "dev" hat. If the software engineer comes across an user wearing just the "dev" hat and tells him "No. We're cutting this feature.", the user won't get a deep understanding of why the software engineer does that. If the software engineer comes across an user wearing the "user" hat and tells him "Yes. We would like to keep this feature, but we don't currently have the resources (manpower and/or time) to support it.", the user again won't get a deep understanding of why the software engineer doesn't have the resources to do it. The software engineering can be the most effective if he wears both the "user" and "dev" hat; where he gives a concerned response demonstrating why, "Yes, we would like to keep this feature; but we have [a new release coming up next month], [various tracked bugs to fix before that release] and [other needed features to do first]. We'll delay this for later; if you want, you can help us out by contributing." which gains the user a far deeper understanding of what is going on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
That makes it more clear. My opinions are decisions to you because they are read as if they were the law, a twist or the opposite thereof; however, we're not talking about the law here, what is "a different viewpoint" to me is "sophistry" to you because you consider this to be in a context of law. If we get back to the context of trying to understand each other and coming to a constructive agreement; then, questions can be used to make clear as to what you are talking about to me such that we can learn from it and come to a constructive agreement.

... further word replay, I mention the fact that I studied the philosophy of law (and how this might help me identify sophistic reasoning) and now you have it that "opinions are decisions to you because they are read as if they were the law" ... and further ... your "sophistry" (which has been identified again and again when I point out your lack of responding to the substance of whats said) has become "sophistic" simply because I "consider this to be in a context of law". None of this was there (either explicitly or implicitly) in what I wrote ... you just plucked it out of the air ... because you never reply to the substance of whats said, you simply associate words, replaying them in some other context.

TomWij wrote:
The substance to me are these questions that I ask about your view of the substance; as they are the only way to get facts, references as well as explanation from you regarding what you write.

.... further word replay ... no, the "substance" is like this: A says "John is a fish", B says "I know John and he doesn't have gills". If you were to reply it would be something like, "I was eating fish and saw John riding a bicycle" ... John and fish are in the sentence but the "substance" (John being a fish ... or not) is not.

TomWij wrote:
And replies that answer these questions were unanswered for a long time; it is only now that your explanation of having studied the "philosophy of law" made part of it clear as to why you see them as such, per the previous paragraph. These questions of mine are labeled as "twists" that "counter" as if I were exercising loopholes in a law;

... no, "exercising loopholes in" reason more like, you (and you alone) are making that connection to "law", the "twists" are in your use of reason, misdirection, word use/replay, etc ... these having nothing to do with "law". I simply stated that having that background provided me with some level of skill in detecting these "twists".

TomWij wrote:
however, these questions just want to know the details behind your viewpoint. Therefore I thank you for partially answering one of the questions.

These answers are entirely in your own mind ... they didn't come from me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, we agree on that; bringing up these answers is a lawless opinionated philosophical word replay that twists the sophistry to the context in which the questions are answered, to come to an understanding of the decisive nature of the substance on the previous thread pages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
Yes, we agree on that; bringing up these answers is a lawless opinionated philosophical word replay that twists the sophistry to the context in which the questions are answered, to come to an understanding of the decisive nature of the substance on the previous thread pages.

You're impossible ... any discourse with you is impossible ... all you do is make patently ridiculous statements like the above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2500
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
You're impossible ... any discourse with you is impossible ... all you do is make patently ridiculous statements like the above


LoL
_________________
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(2010)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
You're impossible ... any discourse with you is impossible ... all you do is make patently ridiculous statements like the above.

Yes, we agree on that; the discourse of answering questions is ... impossible ... and thus we've got to this ridiculousness.

Anon-E-moose wrote:
LoL


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


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
You're impossible ... any discourse with you is impossible ... all you do is make patently ridiculous statements like the above.

Yes, we agree on that; the discourse of answering questions is ... impossible ... and thus we've got to this ridiculousness.

More of the same ... I say "discourse", you say "discourse", I say "ridiculous", you say "ridiculous[ness]". So "we agree", you're impossible, and discourse with you is impossible ... because of your constantly making ridiculous statements and failing to respond to the substance of whats said ... good we're getting somewhere (until, that is, you realise you weren't responding to what I had *actually* written, and change you mind on what it is you were *actually* agreeing about).

Also, do you need to constantly edit your posts subsequent to posting them? ... please put "edit to add" so that its clear that you've changed the original troll.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1194

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There seriously is academical research on this topic:
---
PersonA states PersonB is a constant liar.
PersonB claims to agree on this.
---
Someone like Gödel would see his suspicion verified the world is build upon open-end logic - unfinished logic. In such a dialog the judge hands down the final judgement: The accused can make him the liar.

As Martin Luther translated the bibel into german (I don't know in english):
"Richtet nicht, auf dass ihr nicht gerichtet werded."
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
So "we agree", you're impossible, discourse with you is impossible


In general, discourse of other people with me is constructive; as the questions are answered, which motive leads to value creation. In specific, your discourse with me is constructively impossible; given that questions remain unanswered, instead you opt to chase the tail with further trolling. Therefore, your discourse with me will remain "much ado about nothing"; unless you make the impossible possible, by answering the questions instead of bringing up "more of the same". Until then, we can agree that I am impossible; when you say that in a relationship, it means "I like you". So, therefore I say: You are impossible too. :wink:

ulenrich wrote:
There seriously is academical research on this topic:
---
PersonA states PersonB is a constant liar.
PersonB claims to agree on this.
---
Someone like Gödel would see his suspicion verified the world is build upon open-end logic - unfinished logic. In such a dialog the judge hands down the final judgement: The accused can make him the liar.


This thread sounds more like Hempel's paradox.

ulenrich wrote:
As Martin Luther translated the bibel into german (I don't know in english):
"Richtet nicht, auf dass ihr nicht gerichtet werded."


Judge if you want to be judged; or in my own interpretation, it takes two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 32434
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe we should just have a topic with a vote - all discussion forbidden.
_________________
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
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1243
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

im kinda partial to the brawling....
_________________
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
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2500
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Maybe we should just have a topic with a vote - all discussion forbidden.


:lol: I vote...Ok :lol:
_________________
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(2010)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
TomWij wrote:
khayyam wrote:
You're impossible ... any discourse with you is impossible ... all you do is make patently ridiculous statements like the above.

Yes, we agree on that; the discourse of answering questions is ... impossible ... and thus we've got to this ridiculousness.

So "we agree", you're impossible, discourse with you is impossible ... because of your constantly making ridiculous statements and failing to respond to the substance of whats said.

In general, discourse of other people with me is constructive; as the questions are answered, which motive leads to value creation. In specific, your discourse with me is constructively impossible; [...]

(reconstructed the thread, so its apparent what was being said, and what was being "agreed").

I doesn't matter how you spin it subsequently, you're not "discoursing with other people", being "constructive", and "motive to value creation" (sic), your agreeing to a statement made by me, and as I said you fail to respond to the substance of whats written or (as in this case) subsequently change your mind on what it was you were *actually* agreeing about. In short, you were eating a fish and saw ridiculousness ride by on a bike..

TomWij wrote:
[...] given that questions remain unanswered, instead you opt to chase the tail with further trolling.

... pot calling kettle black ...

TomWij wrote:
Therefore, your discourse with me will remain "much ado about nothing"; unless you make the impossible possible, by answering the questions instead of bringing up "more of the same". Until then, we can agree that I am impossible; when you say that in a relationship, it means "I like you". So, therefore I say: You are impossible too.

.... what "discourse"? As I've said you [...] expect of me to "answer the multiple questions [...] put forward" like some kind of *real* dialogue was in progress when you continually sabotage such a dialogue.

TomWij wrote:
Judge if you want to be judged; or in my own interpretation, it takes two.

"Judge not least ye be judged" ... and here you are back with your "it takes two" card ... it won't wash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2335

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Maybe we should just have a topic with a vote - all discussion forbidden.

... only if you can get Ant & Dec to run it. :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 4433

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What would the vote be "is TomWij a troll?", so case would be closed.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 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