"Jonathan Dowland" <[email protected]> wrote on 19/02/2026 at 11:35:09+0100:
> Hello Pierre-Elliott, > > On Tue Feb 17, 2026 at 2:08 PM GMT, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Calling tarball-shipping a fetish is irrelevant, petty and insulting. > > With my message I REALLY don't wish to fan the flames. But I would like > to better understand the specifics of your objection, because it > surprised me. > > None of us are above writing bad mails, not least Ian (sorry Ian), nor > me. But I didn't find that particular message to be bad, and I would > like to understand what was wrong with it. > > Is it perhaps specifically the term "fetish"? If so, I think this could > potentially be a i18n issue. That turn of phrase is quite common in > en_GB, such that it has been somewhat "defanged" in common use, but I > could understand if it had not been defanged out of our little bubble. > > If Ian had written substantially the same mail, but used e.g. "tarball > obsession", would that have been offensive? (I'm assuming here that > "obsession" has been defanged more internationally. One could make a > reasonable argument that it shouldn't be) > > Or, is the problem in your eyes more fundamentally that Ian reiterates > his opinion that caring about tarballs is wrong? As I mentioned, the issue is with a consistent pattern. Apart from that, I'm not sure I agree with most of the arguments stating that "tarball shipping is wrong", but it's offtopic. -- PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
