Hi Mark, Am Montag, den 03.05.2021, 05:00 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > Leo Prikler <leo.prik...@student.tugraz.at> writes: > > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 23:13 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > > > I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all. It's true that I > > > didn't > > > yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every > > > fact that I presented is true. > > > > > > If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample? > > > > In your very first message you made it seems as though Raghav > > single- > > handedly authored and pushed the changes in question and called > > into > > question their reliability as a committer. The former was based on > > "facts", that turned out half-true – Raghav did push that commit, > > but > > they did so thinking that Léo did proper review, which they did not > > – > > Here, once again, you've failed to point out any of my *actual* words > to back up your (bogus) claim that I "fumbled on the > facts". Instead, you speak of how I "made it seem". You put more > words into my mouth. If you want to read your actual words, they were > Behold, Raghav's "cosmetic changes" to our 'cairo' package Again, those were not Raghav's changes, they were added by Léo and "once again" pushed by Raghav, who trusted them on the matter. You made an incorrect assumption based on incomplete information. I call that fumbling. It was an honest mistake based on the facts you thought present at the time, but nonetheless a mistake.
Please don't assume I'm acting in bad faith and throw around words like bogus lightly. I don't think I'm making any extraordinary claim here, my statements should follow from the words themselves or the interpretations of a casual observer. I am not aiming to grossly misrepresent you here, I'm trying to help you find an answer to the question > Is it possible that you read more in my messages than I > actually wrote? The answer is "Yes, always". People don't just derive raw information from messages, there's all sorts of other cues – including social cues – that swing with them. Even in newspaper articles or scientific literature, there is such a thing as framing. You absolutely have to consider many forms of subtext both when reading and when writing. I hope this clears up any remaining misconceptions. If not and you're fine having me as conversation partner, I'm still willing to answer (some) questions off-list. Again, I am not attacking you for calling attention to an objectively bad commit, I think it was right of you to do so. All of what I'm saying here should at worst be seen as "criticism of your tone". Regards, Leo
