| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hmm I don't really agree, though a link from there would be good.
Disclaimer: i told SpaceToast to document her setup where others can feedback and improve it.
Reason I don't think it's a post for another thread, is that it is its own set of items, with its own author who wants to collaborate and improve it as a whole.
Not sure the argument about dotfiles and XDG is on-topic, though.
Would be good if that were split out to its own thread (must I report?)
Oh, haven't apologised to you directly (only in a post or two elsewhere, which I cannot find now): my apologies for our disagreement last year. I was missing social cues for a while, there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: |
Hmm I don't really agree, though a link from there would be good. |
steveL ... fair enough, it just seemed to me that 'zsh tips' was what SpaceToast was providing, and that is in line with the purpose of 'zsh users (lovers)'.
| steveL wrote: | | Reason I don't think it's a post for another thread, is that it is its own set of items, with its own author who wants to collaborate and improve it as a whole. |
OK, but you could say that about many of the post in the above thread, it runs the gamut from config examples to general user support, there's even bug reports in there. Ultimately its SpaceToast's call, I'm not sure what their intentions are ... I was merely going by the first post.
| steveL wrote: | | Not sure the argument about dotfiles and XDG is on-topic, though. Would be good if that were split out to its own thread (must I report?) |
Firstly, I'm not sure how it could be split without editing each post, secondly, it's provided as a 'tip', and so falls within the bounds of "on topic". I'd expect that tmux, vim, or other subjects mentioned, are similarly "on topic", if it has some bearing on what's written ... that's just an unavoidable part of the circuitous nature of discussion (though I'd expect, and hope, that those involved attempt to draw the subject toward a 'point').
| steveL wrote: | | Oh, haven't apologised to you directly (only in a post or two elsewhere, which I cannot find now): my apologies for our disagreement last year. I was missing social cues for a while, there. |
Yes, I'd read, but have been limiting our exchanges to only those things where superficial politeness, or recognition, is involved. I'm not sure how to read "missing social cues", this means that in substance you were correct, but that what is at issue here is primarily a question of how it was handled (so, purely the social aspect)? As I remember I was at this time a "little sh*t" and quite frankly I haven't changed, I would provide the exact same arguments, and respond in exactly the same way to your behaviour (and substantive "disagreement"), the only difference between then and now is that I chose to let it go at the point of your saying "I'm done" ... otherwise, the criticism, and argument, stands. So, that doesn't offer much in the way of acceptance, because I'm not sure what it is you're apologising for, and generally I take "I'm done" as a sign that we've reached closure.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | steveL ... fair enough, it just seemed to me that 'zsh tips' was what SpaceToast was providing, and that is in line with the purpose of 'zsh users (lovers)'. |
It's too big a subject to force everything into one thread, imo.
As well start a thread on "portage tips", rather than a forum.
"Its own author who wants to collaborate" surely applies to anything; that doesn't mean we should squash all threads into one, irrespective of how mixed together any thread may be currently.
| Quote: | | Firstly, I'm not sure how it could be split without editing each post, |
That's what moderators are for ;)
| Quote: | | secondly, it's provided as a 'tip', and so falls within the bounds of "on topic". |
There's bounds (looking at other relevant areas, in passing) and then there's going completely off-range, by wandering off into philosophy.. ;-)
| Quote: | | I'd expect that tmux, vim, or other subjects mentioned, are similarly "on topic", if it has some bearing on what's written ... that's just an unavoidable part of the circuitous nature of discussion (though I'd expect, and hope, that those involved attempt to draw the subject toward a 'point'). |
That's essentially what I was unsubtly hinting that you do.
Or simply start a subsidiary post about whatever aspect has come up which you find interesting. I usually do as well, but it doesn't sit well in the topic, nor are most people that interested in those other aspects when they come up out of the blue, and the thread wanders for a few, rather long posts. They might well be, if the thread were separated, and clearly about whatever, not about [technology] per-se.
Just a suggestion.
| steveL wrote: | | Oh, haven't apologised to you directly (only in a post or two elsewhere, which I cannot find now): my apologies for our disagreement last year. I was missing social cues for a while, there. |
| Quote: | | Yes, I'd read, but have been limiting our exchanges to only those things where superficial politeness, or recognition, is involved. |
Yes, I noticed: actually feels like you've been avoiding a response to me, where I have quoted you.
| Quote: | | I'm not sure how to read "missing social cues", this means that in substance you were correct, but that what is at issue here is primarily a question of how it was handled (so, purely the social aspect)? |
No; it means that I was wrong on the social aspects, and the technical issues were irrelevant to that.
Though we may be veering off, into other, non-forum discussion here:
| Quote: | | As I remember I was at this time a "little sh*t" and quite frankly I haven't changed, I would provide the exact same arguments, and respond in exactly the same way to your behaviour (and substantive "disagreement"), the only difference between then and now is that I chose to let it go at the point of your saying "I'm done" ... otherwise, the criticism, and argument, stands. So, that doesn't offer much in the way of acceptance, because I'm not sure what it is you're apologising for, and generally I take "I'm done" as a sign that we've reached closure. |
OFC it is: but usually it means "we're done for now"; as in: "I cannot be arguing this out with you, it appears to have gone into issues that are nothing to do with me, so I'm done. Let's talk, likely about something else, when we've both cooled down."
I don't recall the exact circumstance of the IRC argument. The argument I remember, because I've read it again, was the forum one about "it's all energy, QED".
None of this seems worth keeping alive as an issue, for either of us.
In any event: Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | Firstly, I'm not sure how it could be split without editing each post, |
That's what moderators are for ;) |
steve ... sorry, but I do not want moderators editing my posts ... splitting a thread is fine if some part can be extracted and still make sense, but that isn't the case ... and however divergent you, or others, see it, it relates directly to the argument ... there is a dialogue.
| steveL wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | secondly, it's provided as a 'tip', and so falls within the bounds of "on topic". |
There's bounds (looking at other relevant areas, in passing) and then there's going completely off-range, by wandering off into philosophy.. ;-) |
That's entirely a judgement call ... what you see as "off-range" I take to be the argument, and material to support that argument. So, one case in point: when provided an ongoing list of justifications for the use of xdg stipulated dirs, I'm presented with first that its "cleaner", then "more manageable", then "a preference", none of these are supportable and I provide, at each stage of their development, reasons why. In the course of this I'm also drawing to a 'point' why we have such a things (ie, freedesktop.org and their perchance for providing us with their 'specifications', and how they are sold as a "good thing" when in fact the claims, and the rational provided, are at best weak, and at worst adding to the problem they claim to target). That is in part a technical discussion, but to have that discussion other dimensions come into play (be they social, linguistic, or what-have-you), call that philosophical if you will ... but it's simply part of argumentation, because along with any technical discussion is the argumentation used, and everything implied by that argumentation (including the meaning, relevancy, etc, we ascribe).
| steveL wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | I'd expect that tmux, vim, or other subjects mentioned, are similarly "on topic", if it has some bearing on what's written ... that's just an unavoidable part of the circuitous nature of discussion (though I'd expect, and hope, that those involved attempt to draw the subject toward a 'point'). |
That's essentially what I was unsubtly hinting that you do. |
... with the implication that I'm not. I don't expect others think, or express themselves, in a similar manner to me, but I reserve the right to think, and express those thoughts, in the way I do ... if I can be brief and to the point I will be, but otherwise I'm going to say what I think (whether you, or others, think it relevant or not). That is 'to the point' in that I have in my mind what I think is involved, and what I feel is worth drawing out of the discussion ...
| steveL wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | I'm not sure how to read "missing social cues", this means that in substance you were correct, but that what is at issue here is primarily a question of how it was handled (so, purely the social aspect)? |
No; it means that I was wrong on the social aspects, and the technical issues were irrelevant to that. Though we may be veering off, into other, non-forum discussion here: |
Not sure I understand the distinction ... seems to me like that is a yes, rather than no.
| steveL wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | As I remember I was at this time a "little sh*t" and quite frankly I haven't changed, I would provide the exact same arguments, and respond in exactly the same way to your behaviour (and substantive "disagreement"), the only difference between then and now is that I chose to let it go at the point of your saying "I'm done" ... otherwise, the criticism, and argument, stands. So, that doesn't offer much in the way of acceptance, because I'm not sure what it is you're apologising for, and generally I take "I'm done" as a sign that we've reached closure. |
OFC it is: but usually it means "we're done for now"; as in: "I cannot be arguing this out with you, it appears to have gone into issues that are nothing to do with me, so I'm done. Let's talk, likely about something else, when we've both cooled down." |
I'm not sure I can agree with your perception of what in fact that discussion consisted of ... or how "hot" I was ... and while I remember providing you every opportunity for you to justify both your behaviour, and the substance of the argument (ie, with the intent on resolving it then and there), that was met with little other than everything "to do with [you]" (and by that I mean intolerable crap!). So, no, we don't pick up at a later date as and when it suits ... because it wasn't that kind of discussion, and life's too short for me to waste time and energy on such things. When I ask "are we done", I really mean my patience is exhausted, and unless you come to your senses then I'm not going to waste one iota of energy on the issue.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually "picking up at a later date" is precisely not the desired outcome.
Though it seems to be going off into it, when you raise "so you still think you're right?" about a discussion I don't even recall.
Not sure we're getting anywhere.
edit to add: OFC that could be because I've put you on the defensive. Sorry about that, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Not sure we're getting anywhere. |
steve ... fair enough.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | steve ... fair enough.
best ... khay |
Cheers, OM.
Mods: please remove our discussion, as and when. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Mods: please remove our discussion, as and when. |
Mods: I'd prefer if it were split/preserved ... your call.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Gentoo Forums Feedback
