On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:41:12PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > All the rational discussion has always been about what constitutes > > 'hiding', > > I have also read discussion about what we promise not to hide (before > our users, and before fellow developers). I didn't get the impression > that this discussion wasn't rational (although it may have been > conducted in a rather emotional way sometimes).
Did you not read the sentence you quoted? Nothing in this paragraph contradicts it. > But may I point you to the fact that Joel just > tried to start such a discussion (albeit only in a side note to a side > note)? You didn't show that this was irrational (except by assertion > that it is not possible to rationally discuss the meaning of the word > "problems"). It is not necessary to show that a non-obvious assertion with no rationale is irrational. The only appropriate response to a disconnected assertion, such as the one he introduced, is to assert that it is wrong and indicate the correct one. Anything less is to encourage the propagation of an incorrect meme; anything more is a waste of time. Anybody who is interested in discussing the issue will then proceed to discuss it; anybody who is not will demonstrate this fact in a fairly obvious manner (around here, usually denoted by pointless rants and ad-hominem arguments), several examples of which can be seen in this thread. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
