Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)

From: ben (ben_foley_at_web.de)
Date: 11/21/03

  • Next message: Mike Fedyk: "Re: migration from RedHat to Debian, general question about Debian (dpkg, kernel, config)" 
    Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:24:16 +0000
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:50:09 -0800
    "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    > on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +0000, ben (ben_foley@web.de)
    > wrote:
    > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800
    > > csj <csj@zapo.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800,
    > > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj (csj@zapo.net)
    > > > > wrote:
    > > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800,
    > > > > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > [...]
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have replied
    > > > > > > that self-control is apparently beyond their mein, I'll
    > > > > > > remind them that consequences for actions are also their
    > > > > > > responsibility. Including finding themselves ignored by
    > > > > > > those who value s over n.
    > > > > >
    >
    > > while some of us may have got carried away on the exuberance of our
    > > collective velocity, where colin requested that the thread be
    > > closed, i think that there were only one or two respondents who
    > > failed to respect that request. karsten's manner, on the other hand,
    > > comes across as an order,
    >
    > I'd individually contacted most (all I could find) participants of the
    > thread, after it had persisted for several days. Most of these either
    > didn't respond (but ceased posting to the thread) or replied
    > apologetically.

    yeah, i was one of those to whose addresses you felt yourself obliged to
    reply, off list--despite the fact that there is a defacto rule in
    existence among those who've been a certain time with the list, that
    unless a private response is specifically requested, the same is
    undesired. but, never mind--that's just one of the expectations one
    might have. it seems worth pointing out that colin's presentation of his
    disgruntlement with the thread received a favorable response, in that
    only one schmuck (okay, one and a half) [incidentally, bigger problem:
    how does one regard one and a half? it's not exactly three quarters of
    two--is it? really?] made the mistake of not recognising that when colin
    points out that enough is enough, he's not asking anybody to remember
    any rules--he's appropriately chiding us for having tested the patience
    of the list, full in the knowledge that we know, and that we know that
    he knows that we know. are you still with me?
    >
    > Several disputed the basis of my request. Which is:
    >
    > - List charter: "Help and discussion among users of Debian".
    > - Code of conduct: ""
    >
    > > and, as such, is damn near guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone
    > > with a brain. particularly, comments such as the anarchist reference
    > > above are totally unwarranted
    >
    > Several of the individuals who chose to dispute (at length) my request
    > with me made specific reference to anarchist principles.

    which magically entitles you to daub everyone with the same brush--as,
    apparently you don't hold a lot of regard for anarchists (or perhaps its
    only the closet anarchists with whom you have an issue)?

    > I'd recommend you speak of what you know. In this case, you are
    > beyond your depth.

    what is that supposed to mean? the issue is your manner; not what ever
    power you imagine yourself to have, whether real or otherwise. thanks
    for the advice. here's a thought in return: go outside more often; get
    some air while the sun is still up.

    i don't know if you've noticed but you've kinda already stepped in the
    same stuff you're accusing others of not cleaning from their shoe.

    >
    > > and indeed no less of an indulgence than participation in the thread
    > > itself. furthermore, the threat of "consequences" strikes me as a
    > > tad too authoritarian for this particular list.
    >
    > Consequences are simply a matter of mutual respect. If you show
    > respect of others on the list by following posted and general
    > Netiquette guidelines, you'll find your postings receive a reading,
    > and possibly, a response.

    the thread that provokes your outrage swiftly evaporated in response to
    colin's request. my position is that your approach to the issue provokes
    resentment at the tone of your communication, rather than that it
    accommodates mutual respect.

    and, sorry, the phrase "consequences are simply a matter of human
    respect" is just not working for me. that's getting way too beyond
    buddhist, even for me. you must be right. i must be in over my head. so,
    like, how much respect do you figure it takes for the right thing to
    happen? how does one actually work with that proposed axiom, there?

    c'mon. lighten up. it's like how the best-reared and best-bred kids in
    the world sometimes go out and get plastered drunk, no matter what their
    rules or potential. sometimes one just busts out and breaks some
    mendable, and has some fun. never stole your daddy's car, eh?
    >
    > If you choose to abuse the list and its subscribers, you'll find that
    > people chose to ignore your postings, either on a case-by-case basis,
    > or by technical means, including killfiles. I also specifically
    > forwarded at least one message to a Debian project member as the
    > individual more or less explicitly begged to be removed from the list,
    > and I was unable to fulfill the reqeust.

    what? want to fill us in on "more or less...?"

    >
    > As several individual failed to show respect to the list, and
    > specifically showed a studied lack of respect to either myself, Colin
    > Watson, or both, I felt that the favor of a reply or reading was no
    > longer warranted.

    i rest on the previous points above regarding the difference in the
    response to you and to colin.

    >
    >
    > > on the other hand, thanks to colin for pointing out that
    > > debian-curiosa exists.
    >
    > Colin wasn't the only person to mention this, if you'll check the
    > record.

    well, colin's response made me remember and realise the sense of the
    rule, and, had you put it as he did, i'd be remembering that, too.

    >
    > > perhaps we can arrive at a rule whereby the third, fourth, or fifth
    > > response to an off-topic thread would be directed--on the list--to
    > > make use of debian-curiosa as a more appropriate venue.
    >
    > Agreed.
    >
    >
    > Peace.

    considering some of the phrases above, i seriously wonder if you mean
    that. nonetheless, flame off. if you want to discuss this more, let's do
    it off-list.

    ben 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Mike Fedyk: "Re: migration from RedHat to Debian, general question about Debian (dpkg, kernel, config)"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)
      ... >> collective velocity, where colin requested that the thread be closed, i ... > Several of the individuals who chose to dispute my request ... That is the Pot calling the Kettle Day-Glo Orange. ... No response expected. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)
      ... > unless a private response is specifically requested, ... That was in response to: ... >> request with me made specific reference to anarchist principles. ... > (or perhaps its only the closet anarchists with whom you have an ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: W2K3 IIS 6.0 ASP.NET Requests Per Second Limits?
      ... allow the page to tell ASP.Net "don't send a response yet until I tell ... this request is "leaked" and will never ... It is when the callback executes with both the async function call ... The thread executing code literally calls into Function1, execute code, ...
      (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis)
    • Re: Can extra processing threads help in this case?
      ... The child process is terminated if a timeout occurs or the client connection drops which can easily happen when users switch to new pages and/or clicking another link when the browser hour glass is active waiting for a response. ... Whether he realizes it or not, I lean on not, his Many Threads to 1 FIFO OCR thread design (he now says four, 1 for each type of request), requires a thread handle to send back a result to the request thread waiting for a response. ... 100 TPS ... 100 ms PPT (Processing time Per Transaction) ...
      (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
    • Re: W2K3 IIS 6.0 ASP.NET Requests Per Second Limits?
      ... >> The way I understand async programming is if u need to do other ... >> request to webservice nothing more can be done until the result ... > The thread executing code literally calls into Function1, ... > the act of sending back the response using data that has been ...
      (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis)