[ANN] pidgin git import v5
bleeter at gmail.com
Thu May 24 19:11:30 EDT 2012
On 25/05/12 07:34, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Peter Lawler wrote:
>> You, and only you, seem unhappy with the decision taken and then called
>> for an in depth analysis.
> Red herring: appeal to motive; my motives are irrelevant, the analysis
> is still missing.
Blatantly false. Your motive is highly relevant as any analysis produced
would have to meet your standard. Thus, whoever produced such an
analysis would have to consider not just what you want but why so that a
full, detailed and exacting paper could be produced to satisfy your
demand for such a paper.
> I am not requesting anything,
> All you have to do is say "We will not provide an analysis", that's it.
Seems like a request to me.
> Of course, you know how bad that sounds, and it's understandable that
> you are reluctant to say so, but that should prompt you to provide an
> analysis, not to avoid the fact.
> Since nobody has stepped forward and said so, I wanted to leave it clear
> for the record. That's all.
Once again, you're requesting an analysis be provided whilst
simultaneously claiming you're not requesting anything. Your repeated
attempts to bully and intimidate volunteers to doing is disgraceful. It
would appear that you are shameless.
>> On this point, I note that it's been around 5 months since you mentioned
>> wanting to see an analysis. No one else on the list seems to have cared
>> for one, with or without as much passion as you have. I encourage you to
>> produce one ASAP.
> You want _me_ to provide an analysis of why pidgin developers are
> choosing mercurial? I don't think anybody can provide such analysis and
> leave the decision in good light without missing some important
> information. Feel free to prove me wrong.
You're the person who wants this thing done. You've not convinced me,
nor it'd seem anyone else on this list, of a need for me to lift a
finger to do this thing for you. You then passively suggest that the
decision is bad.
> I might come up with sucn analysis, but I doubt it would help anyone.
You're allegedly not requesting anyone do anything, then request someone
to do something, then say that you won't do it yourself, and the thing
you're after wouldn't help anyone anyway.
> In any case, I'm not interested in discussing my motives, or my agenda,
> or any other red herrings. I believe there would not be any purpose on
> continuing this thread with you (Peter Lawler), until you start by
> acnlowledging the fact that there is no publicly available summarized
> analysis, and there will not be one.
hahahahahaha ... hahaha
> And if you acknowledge that, I don't see anything else in your mail that
> can be discussed.
> So, I'm not going to reply to you until you acknowledge that.
Go have a cry, (Felipe Contreras). Or find someone else to try and bully.
Or better still, before having a crack at someone for mistakenly
pressing the wrong REPLY button, install and use a spell checker that
enforces proper spelling of words between pressing SEND and actually
sending your emails.
More information about the Devel