Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2018
Aristotle, after some discussion on #p5p I wanted to make clear: 1. I do not think you intended to besmirch SawyersX character and therefore I do not think you should apologize for the choice of the word "falsehood". 2. To the extent that you or any others may consider my response to be overly aggressive I apologize unreservedly. 3. Of the various synonyms for "falsehood" you might choose, you may find that saying an assertion is "incorrect", "mistaken" or possibly an "untruth", as opposed to a "falsehood" is much less likely to cause someone (like me) to assume you mean "lying". 4. To a certain extent I was replying to you because I thought it was a useful forum to express my view, without getting involved in more politically sensitive side-discussions. I apologise if you consider this inappropriate. 5. No disrespect was intended to you. Sorry if any was taken. Regards, Yves On 8 January 2018 at 14:54, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 January 2018 at 11:38, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de> wrote: >> * Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> [2017-12-25 11:02]: >>> I do not enjoy you picking the one sentence you want to respond to, >>> especially when it is the opposite of the complete point I am making. >>> I clarified that I think it should be reverted, but you looked for me >>> beginning with the counter point so you could have your opening to say >>> what you wanted. >>> >>> Now considering I've resolved to reverting it, what is the point >>> you're trying to drive? Convincing me to do what I said we should? >> >> The selective quoting you complained about served the purpose of making >> his point, which he then states right up front: that your claim that >> smartmatch has always been experimental was a falsehood. >> >> Which it was. > > I checked the definition of "falsehood", which is in English "a lie". > > I think there is a big difference between "falsehood" and "an > incorrect statement". > > Is there any example of Sawyer repeating this claim once he was > corrected? If not then I think it is most inappropriate and inartful > choice of word. > > I am ignoring the rest of your comment because in pretty much any > "getting along as a group" rules calling someone a liar is a > non-starter and not acceptable. > > People need to understand that being correct does NOT give one a right > to be offensive, and that being incorrect is NOT a malicious act. > Especially not when the *PumpKing* makes the mistake. > > Imputing malicious or hostile intent in a technical disagreement or > policy disagreement should never happen, and should result in > moderation. > > Just about every governing body has rules forbidding what is called in > the western tradition "unparliamentary language". Suggesting that any > member is dishonorable, including accusing them of lying is forbidden. > As far as I am concerned this list needs to operate under similar > traditions. > > I do not believe that there is a SINGLE person on this list who has > an intent to deceive, or any form of malicious intent at all, and we > should ALL avoid any suggestion to the contrary. > > So for me, accusing someone of spreading falsehoods, lying, or any > other dishonorable behavior should result in the offender being given > a chance to provide an honest apology, and if they fail to do so or > the behavior is repetitive then the person should be banned. > > cheers, > yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next