5 ms·

@jspthrowaway2: You selectively quoted from the thread. You specifically leave out where @delvauxnic and I settled the miscommunication (I've quoted the rest b

by bkuhn 14y ago

@jspthrowaway2: You selectively quoted from the thread. You specifically leave out where @delvauxnic and I settled the miscommunication (I've quoted the rest below). I think it was disingenuous of you to selectively edit in that way. Not only that, but you'll see I never called @delvauxnic "insecure", a "McCarthyist", a "dick" or anything else. I just kept pointed out that he seemed to be avoiding denouncing @sadbfl's own name-calling: in which he called people like me all of those names. Also, while that very thread was going on, (as you note) I was discussing substantive issues with @delvauxnic. I responded to every one of his salient points and engaged in debate. Your characterization of that conversion is completely inaccurate, IMO, and I encourage others to click over, read the whole thing for themselves, and make their own conclusions. Here's the resolution of the subthread you quote from above: @delvauxnic says: > I never said that it was acceptable. I understand that you feel offended but please have some hindsight and read again my comments. I replied: > my concern:you seem to avoid saying outright "@sabdfl's name-calling is wrong";You could say so & still agree w/his other points @delvauxnic replied: >Once again, the style of this comparison (name-calling if you prefer) was definitely wrong. But what is important (THE POINT) was exactly... I replied: > thank you for saying that it was wrong. I disagree that "it's an informal interview" is a legitimate excuse for @sabdfl though. @delvauxnic also said: > But yes, "@sabdfl's name-calling was wrong". Are you happy now that I reformulated what I said in my 1st comment? I replied: > @delvauxnic, I'm sorry, I thought you were subtly avoiding it; it seems that I was wrong about that; I get you thought you'd said it already

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
Although you resolved it later, you started it the way I have described, which is what I am taking issue with. I don't care how the argument ended, I'm taking issue with how it started. Most people lose interest when shut down the way you shut that guy down. How is it remotely logical to expect someone to denounce someone else's rhetoric before they're allowed to discuss the argument with you? I'm not going to apologize to you for something that somebody else said, but if I agree with his points, you know what, I agree with his points.
- bkuhn 14y ago
  @jsthrowaway2, your analysis just doesn't take into account how that conversation evolved. We were discussing different issues in multiple subthreads all at the same time. In the subthread you mention, the fellow was initially coming across defending @sabdfl's assessments. He clarified that, and that subthread ended, and the others with the salient points continued. I challenge you to find any argument that he made, salient or otherwise, that I failed to respond to in that thread.
  - jspthrowaway2 14y ago
    > In the subthread you mention, the fellow was initially coming across defending @sabdfl's assessments. ...in your analysis, which was demonstrably wrong. I, and probably many other people who read his opening shot, (correctly) interpreted it as disagreeing with the way Mark phrased his arguments. The hint is where he says that Mark didn't choose his words carefully, which you interpreted as meaning "I agree and I would have phrased the exact same thing differently!", which is just asinine. You interpreted his remarks the way you wanted to, which wasn't entirely square with reality. Again, I don't care how the conversation evolved, because the guy persisted far longer than I would have (and I give him extreme credit for doing so). The standard argument style seems to be "straw man, straw man, straw man, you and I have nothing to discuss". It is to his credit that he continued and was able to reach an amicable conclusion, but I think the majority of people would roll their eyes and just disengage you at that point. It took him several back-and-forths just to get you to stop badgering him for Mark Shuttleworth's words, for Christ's sake. Let's forget the entire rest of the conversation and let's focus on this: A: FOSS people are McCarthyists. And the idealism impedes forward motion in an indirect way. B: Hey, you know, he's right that the balance between idealism and pragmatism is a bit too far one way. Here's some thoughts about that. Why don't we discuss it? C: I'm sorry to see that you agree that we're McCarthyists. I'd disengage you at C. He persisted, and kudos to him. That's what I'm having an issue with. You already tried building a straw man with me, claiming that I was being disingenuous by editing the conversation, implying that I've introduced falsehoods and manipulated the truth; I did not edit the conversation, but I did selectively quote the portions that I would like to discuss. Selective quotation is not editing.

by bkuhn 14y ago

jspthrowaway2 14y ago

Although you resolved it later, you started it the way I have described, which is what I am taking issue with. I don't care how the argument ended, I'm taking issue with how it started. Most people lose interest when shut down the way you shut that guy down. How is it remotely logical to expect someone to denounce someone else's rhetoric before they're allowed to discuss the argument with you? I'm not going to apologize to you for something that somebody else said, but if I agree with his points, you know what, I agree with his points.

bkuhn 14y ago
@jsthrowaway2, your analysis just doesn't take into account how that conversation evolved. We were discussing different issues in multiple subthreads all at the same time. In the subthread you mention, the fellow was initially coming across defending @sabdfl's assessments. He clarified that, and that subthread ended, and the others with the salient points continued. I challenge you to find any argument that he made, salient or otherwise, that I failed to respond to in that thread.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  > In the subthread you mention, the fellow was initially coming across defending @sabdfl's assessments. ...in your analysis, which was demonstrably wrong. I, and probably many other people who read his opening shot, (correctly) interpreted it as disagreeing with the way Mark phrased his arguments. The hint is where he says that Mark didn't choose his words carefully, which you interpreted as meaning "I agree and I would have phrased the exact same thing differently!", which is just asinine. You interpreted his remarks the way you wanted to, which wasn't entirely square with reality. Again, I don't care how the conversation evolved, because the guy persisted far longer than I would have (and I give him extreme credit for doing so). The standard argument style seems to be "straw man, straw man, straw man, you and I have nothing to discuss". It is to his credit that he continued and was able to reach an amicable conclusion, but I think the majority of people would roll their eyes and just disengage you at that point. It took him several back-and-forths just to get you to stop badgering him for Mark Shuttleworth's words, for Christ's sake. Let's forget the entire rest of the conversation and let's focus on this: A: FOSS people are McCarthyists. And the idealism impedes forward motion in an indirect way. B: Hey, you know, he's right that the balance between idealism and pragmatism is a bit too far one way. Here's some thoughts about that. Why don't we discuss it? C: I'm sorry to see that you agree that we're McCarthyists. I'd disengage you at C. He persisted, and kudos to him. That's what I'm having an issue with. You already tried building a straw man with me, claiming that I was being disingenuous by editing the conversation, implying that I've introduced falsehoods and manipulated the truth; I did not edit the conversation, but I did selectively quote the portions that I would like to discuss. Selective quotation is not editing.