On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
>> > propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
>> > concluding that the reason for a limit was the speed at which
>> > people were performing their job. I was just proposing an
>> > alternate reason to yours. If the proposers of such limits had
>> > stated that they think it would aid in the speed at which things
>> > got done, they eluded me.
>>
>> That is not quite right. I have not presumed to know what reasons
>> other people might have had for limits, nor did I propose a rationale
>> for limits; I have merely expressed my opinion about one cause for
>> the deficiencies in the tech ctte's performance. I have suggested
>> that this cause (lack of time pr participation) has an observable
>> metric, and that metric could be used to aid decisions about the
>> composition of the cotte, rather than just setting some arbitrary
>> limits.
> well you clearly stated that you thought the proposal to limit the
> number of hats was silly "Because the number of hats does not seem to
> be a good predictor for performance..." I was just trying to suggest
> this is not the only reason that one might want to suggest such a
> limit. You seem to agree that my reason sounds valid, so I guess your
> previous reason for thinking it to be a silly proposal is no longer
> relevant, so we can drop it...
You evidently have trouble reading what I said. I have never
ever stated anything about speed, as you quote shows. And then,
after misreading my stance, you proceed to knock down an argument never
made -- in logic, this is known as a strawman.
When you are ready to talk without logical fallacies like
strawpersons, get back to me. At this point, this conversation id
beginning to degenerate.
>>
>> > Are you implying that my hypothetical shouldn't be advanced here?
>>
>> Having seen no concrete rationale, I have no idea whether your
>> hypothetical has any value or not. Did I not invite you tpo present
>> any supporting arguments?
> You did not. You invited me to present a well thought out proposal
> that I was ready to defend publicly instead of just a hypothetical,
> which seemed to make me think that you didn't think I should be
> advancing any such hypothetical until I had such a proposal. Which i
> don't have. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions.
Indeed. If you want to advance hypotheticals that are not meant
to advance to a real proposal, I suggest you are wasting people's time.
I thought you were talking about the proposal when you asked
about presenting hypotheticals (as in, a specific, even if
hypothetical, proposal), and whether it should be advanced here: my
answer to that stands: if a proposition can be defended, feel free to
propose it.
If it is mere debating ploy, please take it over to curiosa.
manoj
--
Children are unpredictable. You never know what inconsistency they're
going to catch you in next. -- Franklin P. Jones
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
