Re: Pull is Mostly Evil

From: James Denholm <nod.helm@gmail.com>
Date: May 4, 2014, 10:37 UTC
Message-ID: <2bbbfedd-b224-4ef0-a611-fe78d3446db8@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <53660d8d74c68_1c89b0930c53@nysa.notmuch>

On 4 May 2014 19:51:09 GMT+10:00, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

>James Denholm wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >David Lang wrote:
>> >> the vast majority of people here do not take that attitude.
>> >
>> >It's actually the exact opposite. I don't care what is the track
>record
>> >of the people in the discussion.
>> 
>> Ah, yes, like that discussion we once had where you totally didn't
>run
>> `git log | grep James Denholm` at one point to demonstrate that I had
>> not yet made any contributions,instead of actually engaging in
>> discussion. Oh, wait.
>
>You mean this thread[1] in which I sent 14 mails directly to you? Yeah,
>I din't engage in that discussion at all!

Yeah, you didn't. Instead you danced, but I guess it's really all said and done now so eh, have your point.

Show 11 quoted lines

>> >If their argument is good, their argument is good.
>> 
>> The problem, though, is that time and time again you've shown that
>you
>> value your own arguments to the exclusion of all others. You can't
>> tell if someone else's argument is good, because it runs against
>> yours, and yours must be right because you hold it.
>
>I can show you evidence of how that's a blatant lie. Just two days ago
>I
>changed my mind because somebody provided a good argument.

And I can show you evidence of you being indiscourseable on the topic of your pet proposals, but I won't, because you're indiscourseable on the meta similarly.

>But I'm not going to bother any more with you, you are just spreading
>lies and tainting the discussion.

Well, maybe we'll see what other folks think.

Regards, James Denholm.