Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #160738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-18 15:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-19 02:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 110 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Adobe Flash Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 15:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 16:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> - 2015-11-18 16:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-18 19:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 20:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-19 00:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 01:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 14:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-18 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-18 20:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 20:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-19 18:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 01:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-11-20 01:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-20 08:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-20 09:30 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 10:30 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 14:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-21 15:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-21 18:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 23:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-22 00:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 04:10 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 05:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Ben Stones <ben@b3ns.com> - 2015-11-22 13:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-23 18:50 +0100
Re: Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-22 18:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-11-20 09:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 00:40 +0100
Which repositories are permitted and which are not Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 01:20 +0100
The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 04:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should' John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-22 05:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-11-22 17:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 18:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 20:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 23:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 23:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-23 00:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-23 00:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-23 00:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Ben Stones <ben@b3ns.com> - 2015-11-23 01:30 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-11-22 21:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 01:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-20 07:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-20 09:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 05:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Glenn English <ghe@srv.slsware.net> - 2015-11-21 08:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 09:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 10:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 14:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 10:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 15:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 19:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-22 02:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-11-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 13:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-11-20 14:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-20 15:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-11-20 16:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-20 17:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 12:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-11-21 13:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-11-21 14:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 04:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-11-22 14:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 14:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 00:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 01:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 04:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 16:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 19:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100
"operating system" Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-23 02:50 +0100
pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2015-11-23 10:40 +0100
Re: pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-11-23 20:30 +0100
Re: pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-11-24 11:30 +0100
Re: pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-24 15:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-18 19:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Tom Ashley <tomashleyjr@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 22:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 00:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-19 01:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 01:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Tom Ashley <tomashleyjr@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 02:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-19 02:30 +0100
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 13:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) |
| Message-ID | <qxfCq-5gE-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160902 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:20:23 -0300, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 07:44:26 +0300 > moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote: > > > Even when I complied with this, you made it clear that it doesn't matter > > what words I use anyway, because by having opinions and expressing them I > > am doing something akin to the Inquisition. > > Not at all; it is only when you try to force others to hold those same > opinions that you start on the road to intolerance and persecution. > Cheers, In that case, I am doing nothing wrong. I am not burning people at the stake for using Adobe Flash, merely saying telling them they shouldn't. I am not forcing anyone to do anything, unless expression of opinion is considered by you a use of force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 14:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxgI9-5XE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160889 |
Renaud writes: > No, because you are still trying to impose your own values on others. There is no attempt to impose anything. "You should do that" does not mean "You must do that or I will punish you". Do you find "You should recycle" offensive? How about "You should not injure others?" -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 15:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxgRQ-61A-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160917 |
Il 21/11/2015 14:40, John Hasler ha scritto: > Renaud writes: >> No, because you are still trying to impose your own values on others. > There is no attempt to impose anything. "You should do that" does not > mean "You must do that or I will punish you". Do you find "You should > recycle" offensive? How about "You should not injure others?" ... not to mention he is the only one, here, who *consistently insists* to have others to change *their* behavior. The original comment boils down to a semantic: "IMHO it's wrong to..." (reread the original post, please), while the other side semantic content is: "You *must not* use the word 'should', otherwise..." (implying failure to comply means offender is ready to eat babies... or something worse). Who's the "Taliban"? Almost invariably whoever makes such a fuss about words is really after something else (as all lawyers know very well). Regards Mauro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 18:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxjZn-8lF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160921 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:55:29 +0100, Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> wrote: > Il 21/11/2015 14:40, John Hasler ha scritto: > > Renaud writes: > >> No, because you are still trying to impose your own values on others. > > There is no attempt to impose anything. "You should do that" does not > > mean "You must do that or I will punish you". Do you find "You should > > recycle" offensive? How about "You should not injure others?" > ... not to mention he is the only one, here, who *consistently insists* to > have others to change *their* behavior. > > The original comment boils down to a semantic: "IMHO it's wrong > to..." (reread the original post, please), while the other side semantic > content is: "You *must not* use the word 'should', otherwise..." (implying > failure to comply means offender is ready to eat babies... or something > worse). > > Who's the "Taliban"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban > Almost invariably whoever makes such a fuss about words is really after > something else (as all lawyers know very well). > > Regards > Mauro >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 18:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxkiJ-8sB-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160930 |
Il 21/11/2015 18:15, moxalt ha scritto: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:55:29 +0100, Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> wrote: > Who's the "Taliban"? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban I know, thanks. That was meant as a rhetoric question; alternately spelled as: "Who fits better the definition of "Taliban" (thanks for the pointer, in case someone needs it ;) ) between the original poster and whoever rebuked him?" Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so my command of the language is lacking (so say the least), please bear with me. Regards Mauro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 23:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxp8J-3ge-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160931 |
On Saturday 21 November 2015 17:36:46 Mauro Condarelli wrote: > Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so my command of the > language is lacking (so say the least), please bear with me. Which might limit your ability to comment on the finer nuances of the meaning of the language. Please don't take that as a criticism - my knowledge of Italian is only just the right side of non-existent - but you aren't in a good position to comment. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 00:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxq4N-3W9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160946 |
Il 21/11/2015 23:45, Lisi Reisz ha scritto: > On Saturday 21 November 2015 17:36:46 Mauro Condarelli wrote: >> Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so my command of the >> language is lacking (so say the least), please bear with me. > Which might limit your ability to comment on the finer nuances of the meaning > of the language. > > Please don't take that as a criticism - my knowledge of Italian is only just > the right side of non-existent - but you aren't in a good position to > comment. That, may be the case, but I feel like I can distinguish between who is really trying to force someone else to behave in a well defined way and who isn't. Here we are not discussing "nuances", but "annoyance". BTW this is, again, a lawyer trick: divert the attention from the main subject to the irrelevant to score a point. Anyway (back on subject): Since everybody here is, more or less, in the computer trade: why don't we stick to RFC2119? (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) It seems pretty explicit on what the meaning of "should" should be. (double "should" very intentional) Have a nice weekend! Mauro > > Lisi >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 04:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxtcm-6aY-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160953 |
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:47:08 +0100, Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> wrote: > Il 21/11/2015 23:45, Lisi Reisz ha scritto: > > On Saturday 21 November 2015 17:36:46 Mauro Condarelli wrote: > >> Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so my command of the > >> language is lacking (so say the least), please bear with me. > > Which might limit your ability to comment on the finer nuances of the > > meaning of the language. > > > > Please don't take that as a criticism - my knowledge of Italian is only just > > the right side of non-existent - but you aren't in a good position to > > comment. > That, may be the case, but I feel like I can distinguish between who is > really trying to force someone else to behave in a well defined way and who > isn't. Here we are not discussing "nuances", but "annoyance". BTW this is, > again, a lawyer trick: divert the attention from the main subject to the > irrelevant to score a point. > > Anyway (back on subject): > Since everybody here is, more or less, in the computer trade: why don't we > stick to RFC2119? (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) It seems pretty > explicit on what the meaning of "should" should be. (double "should" very > intentional) lol
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 05:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxui5-6Xx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160946 |
El 21/11/15 a las 16:45, Lisi Reisz escribió: > On Saturday 21 November 2015 17:36:46 Mauro Condarelli wrote: >> Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so my command of the >> language is lacking (so say the least), please bear with me. > > Which might limit your ability to comment on the finer nuances of the meaning > of the language. > > Please don't take that as a criticism - my knowledge of Italian is only just > the right side of non-existent - but you aren't in a good position to > comment. If telling somebody that he is incompetent to the point that he is unable to make meaningful comments is not criticism, then I do not know what "criticism" means. ;) English is not my native language either, but that does not mean that I can not comment on subtle points. I have seen native speakers do much worser than me. For example, by using "try _and_", instead of "try _to_", thinking that masculine grammatical gender refers only to males, and so on. Especially on this last point, being a native speaker of Spanish makes me better able to judge than an untrained native speaker of English would. Ignorant native English speakers seem to have too much trouble comprehending that grammatical gender in general does not imply the sex of the subject to which it is applied. In Spanish as in many other languages, we routinely use nouns with grammatical gender to refer to both sexes or unspecified (For example: "Los estudiantes" -> "The students(male)" does not exclude females students, neither does "Las victimas" -> "The victims(female)" exclude males). Combined with the fact that political correctness is a plague among English speaking countries, this has led to deform the English language as in using "they" for singular. I have the impression that these kinds of mistakes are more common among native speakers. Being able to see things from the outside is often an advantage. For example, learning Lojban (more information available using a search engine) one is able to see one's native language from an "outside" view and spot many illogical and ambiguous constructs easily in order to avoid them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 12:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxAQx-2YK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160962 |
On Sunday 22 November 2015 04:10:01 Mario Castelán Castro wrote: > Ignorant native English speakers seem to have too much trouble > comprehending that grammatical gender in general does not imply the sex > of the subject to which it is applied. In Spanish as in many other > languages, we routinely use nouns with grammatical gender to refer to > both sexes or unspecified (For example: "Los estudiantes" -> "The > students(male)" does not exclude females students, neither does "Las > victimas" -> "The victims(female)" exclude males). There are very few cases in English where gender and sex are different. So of course most English people don't understand it. You find me a Spaniard who can understand English tenses and moods correctly. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Stones <ben@b3ns.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 13:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxBtf-3ej-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160966 |
Folks, There are a lot of arguments going around in this e-mail chain and now people are just hurting other people's feelings. Arguments are pointless if no one agrees with each other and only serves to create unnecessary conflicts which no one wants. I have been hoping for the past 24 hours that this conversation would end. People subscribe to the Debian Mailing List with the intention of receiving questions and discussions regarding Debian. Arguments like this create a negative atmosphere which affects everyone and not just those in the e-mail chain. I am hopeful my e-mail will calm the situation. Kind Regards, Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qxLVE-21Z-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160970 |
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:54:07AM +0000, Ben Stones wrote: > Folks, > > There are a lot of arguments going around in this e-mail chain and now > people are just hurting other people's feelings. Arguments are pointless if > no one agrees with each other ... Au contraire, arguments are pointless if everyone *agrees* with each other, unless you're actually paying someone for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 18:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should'. |
| Message-ID | <qy3pw-51A-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #161017 |
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:06:02 +1300, Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:54:07AM +0000, Ben Stones wrote: > > Folks, > > > > There are a lot of arguments going around in this e-mail chain and now > > people are just hurting other people's feelings. Arguments are pointless if > > no one agrees with each other ... > > Au contraire, arguments are pointless if everyone *agrees* with each > other, unless you're actually paying someone for it: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c +1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: |
| Message-ID | <qxG9A-6uV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160931 |
Mom always said: "don't feed the Troll!" I should have listened to her... The truly ridikkulus(!) thing is ranting against "our" behavior he is doing the same exact thing, only with more force and arrogance. Pretty please to everyone: Let us stop feeding the Troll; he is really getting too fat. I, for one, won't answer again in this thread. Regards to everyone Mauro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qwPeX-4Iu-39@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160828 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:01:49PM -0500, Ric Moore wrote: [...] > It's arrogant as soon as you use the word "should". You should not should (there, now we have a mess ;-P I get your both's point. Uh, whatever. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlZO0MkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaIBACeLXOs62YN5EgxFKGfMk8PYlF/ 0+gAnA771+sVeRxepIokEEnxF4oQuBOS =35m4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxpV7-3RO-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160828 |
El 19/11/15 a las 18:01, Ric Moore escribió: > On 11/19/2015 11:55 AM, moxalt wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:34:38 +0000, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> >> wrote: > >>> That's a bit arrogant - saying that other people shouldn't watch the >>> news on >>> their computers because you would choose not to do so. >>> >>> Lisi >> >> I don't think advocating that others should follow certain ethical >> principles >> is at all arrogant. > > It's arrogant as soon as you use the word "should". "Shoulding" is one > of the 100+ "Elements of Criminal Thinking". Try "IMHO It would be > better if..." to offer your personal POV, which others are free to > accept or ignore. Your views will gain more attraction in that manner. What is correct and what SHOULD be done, SHOULD never be put second to political correctness. When people is doing wrong, they ought to know that. If somebody isn't going to listen to moral principles, watering down the criticism so that it comes as a suggestion to him instead of a moral obligation corrupts the cause and corrupts society because it makes ethics appear as no more than a mere "suggestion" instead of a must entailed by human nature. That is exactly the mistake that the Open Source Movement made. I do not see how moxalt's behavior was arrogant. Quite the contrary, if anything is arrogant, is the suggestion that we leave should leave aside the imperative tone of moral for the sake of the comfort of the people who are too indolent to care about moral.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 01:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Which repositories are permitted and which are not |
| Message-ID | <qxqxP-4of-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160952 |
On Saturday 21 November 2015 23:34:44 Mario Castelán Castro wrote: > When people is doing wrong, they ought to know that. If somebody isn't > going to listen to moral principles, It is not up to this list to teach us all moral principles. We all have different moral principles. Maybe some of us have none, though I doubt it. "I like so and so" is fine. "I like so and so because" is fine. Even "I recommend". I am tired of being lectured at and carpeted for using Debian. If the Thought Police think that the contrib and non-free repositories should not be there, they should take it up with the Developers. As I have pointed out earlier, we should be able to use them in peace without being under this constant pressure and bullying. (And it feels like bullying when I get jumped on every time I or someone I offer to help wants to use my/his/her computer to listen to the British media.) One of the reasons I like Debian is that it gives me the freedom to choose. Or anyhow, it did. There are plenty of fully Free distros for those that want a fully Free distro. We should (yes, should) be free to use the whole of Debian without being called immoral. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 04:50 +0100 |
| Subject | The word 'should' |
| Message-ID | <qxtP4-6wO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160955 |
El 21/11/15 a las 18:10, Lisi Reisz escribió: > On Saturday 21 November 2015 23:34:44 Mario Castelán Castro wrote: >> When people is doing wrong, they ought to know that. If somebody isn't >> going to listen to moral principles, > > It is not up to this list to teach us all moral principles. We all have > different moral principles. Maybe some of us have none, though I doubt > it. "I like so and so" is fine. "I like so and so because" is fine. > Even "I recommend". By "this list", I understand that you mean "the participants of this mailing list". With this in mind: Yes, of course it is up to us to teach you (or any other participant) the morals associated with using a computer!. Your suggestion to treat morals as a matter of taste or a personal decision is absurd. Moral is not a matter of taste nor "like". It comes from observations, deductions, and judgment and it is precisely about what and how things *should* be done. Do we ought to tell people "I like to not to kill innocent people" instead of "You should not kill innocent people"?. Of course not. I am not comparing proprietary software to killing, I am examining the logical consequence of your "suggestion". If people were responsible enough, we wouldn't have to insist on morals, they would figure it on themselves and act accordingly; and would "catch up" quickly on the remaining points from the existing conversation among their peers that already figured those remaining points. We have to keep insisting, like parents keep insisting on their misbehaving children, because people and children are irresponsible and need to be told things many times. Moral is everywhere. From supermarket shopping to stock trading (all of those financial movements including product purchases have moral consequences) and of course, computers (including tablet computers and computer phones, more popularly miscalled "smart phones"). We all participants of the mailing list are members of *THE* society, the only society which is entangled to levels unthinking of in the best dreams and worst nightmares of our ancestors just 500 years ago (when we didn't have intercontinental planes, computers and computability theory were inexistent, and men was completely terrestrial (now we have been to the Moon and Earth's orbit)). What you do affects everybody. We some people care about society's common good (we like to call it "consciousness") and our good (we like to call it "human nature"). Naturally, we comment on the things you do that affect society for bad, and in this context often that involves using or recommending proprietary software. The point is that moral is an unavoidable consequence of daily life, and how you behave according to moral affects us individually and the society we care for, so it is only natural to expect moral comment for whatever you do. > I am tired of being lectured at and carpeted for using Debian. If the Thought > Police think that the contrib and non-free repositories should not be there, > they should take it up with the Developers. As I have pointed out earlier, > we should be able to use them in peace without being under this constant > pressure and bullying. (And it feels like bullying when I get jumped on > every time I or someone I offer to help wants to use my/his/her computer to > listen to the British media.) > > One of the reasons I like Debian is that it gives me the freedom to choose. > Or anyhow, it did. There are plenty of fully Free distros for those that > want a fully Free distro. We should (yes, should) be free to use the whole > of Debian without being called immoral. So either (1) You are implicitly asserting that using proprietary software has no immoral consequences. Since you said you have been "lectured t and carpeted", I can tell that you have already been explained why it does. (2) You are asserting nothing about whether it is moral consequences, but you are asserting that IF it has moral consequences, somehow (there is a missing step in your reasoning here) we ought to ignore those moral consequences. Since morals is about good and bad, fair and unfair, benefit and prejudice, you are implicitly asserting that we must just watch actionless as these wrongs, injustices or prejudices are being discussed as if there was nothing wrong, unfair, or prejudicial about them. ----- Your problem is that you handle our criticism regarding the problems that proprietary software causes for you and for society as if it was a matter of taste, while it is not. There is a reason for this criticism. If you are being pressured or "carpeted", there is a reason for that pressure or carpeting. Why do you not listen to that reason?. If the reasons are void, then there is no reason you should feel pressured by them, since we would be speaking nonsense. In short: If you do not want to be criticized for being indolent in using proprietary software, then stop being indolent and do not use proprietary software, period. There was a driver who was cruising the 80th highway and heard in his radio "Warning to drivers of the 80th highway; warning to drivers of the 80th highway: there is an idiot who driving backwards". He looks through the windshield and says "Ahhh, it's not a single one. There are *TENS* of them!!!". That is all I have to said in this specific regard. If you reply, and I don't reply back, it's not that I do not have anything to say, but that I said it already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 05:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should' |
| Message-ID | <qxtYK-6Ax-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160960 |
Lisi writes: > I am tired of being lectured at and carpeted for using Debian. You needn't read anything you don't want to. Use your killfile and be happy. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 12:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The word 'should' |
| Message-ID | <qxAQx-2YK-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160960 |
On Sunday 22 November 2015 03:43:36 Mario Castelán Castro wrote: > We have to keep > insisting, like parents keep insisting on their misbehaving children, > because people and children are irresponsible and need to be told things > many times. That is precisely what I am talking about. The arrogance of it. You have no right to insist on our doing anything. You personally really are in league with the Taliban. "We know what is right and the rest of you will do as you are told." There are children starving, people being bombed, dreadful diseases unconquered, antibiotics rendered useless by gross misuse, and you are being as rude and unpleasant as this because some people choose to use a piece of software of which you disapprove. And you dare to call us "misbehaving children". At least I now know that everything from you need only be treated with the contempt it clearly deserves. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web