| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Sorry to rain on your parade, but with ciaranm's consistent history, |
| 3 |
> > allowing him to participate in Gentoo's discussions itself is a |
| 4 |
> > privilege of patience on the part of the Gentoo community. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I would believe that recent history would show the opposite. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Recent "history" does not change the nature of a person, nor does it |
| 10 |
rebuild the bridges they have burnt. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> There seem |
| 13 |
> to be a group of developers at which the mere mention of ciaranm results |
| 14 |
> in setting them off. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So you expect us to just ignore all his past problems and give him a |
| 17 |
fresh start everytime someone mentions him? Do you really expect us to |
| 18 |
not take a persons well-known history into account when dealing with |
| 19 |
them? This is at best unrealistic and at worst trollish. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Regardless of the technical merits of a solution |
| 22 |
> they seem more interested in just derailing anything that might have |
| 23 |
> anything to do with ciaramn. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What the hell does this discussion have to do with technical merits of |
| 27 |
any solution? Please don't attempt a validity by association[1]. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> I realise that ciaranm has had a nasty past. But recently I haven't see |
| 30 |
> anything. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Having witnessed Ciaran playing nice for a while before getting back |
| 33 |
to vitriolic attacks several times before, I take all this with a |
| 34 |
record-shatteringly-massive grain of salt. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I would like to see good behavior for much longer before bringing my |
| 37 |
guard down. I keep an open and forgiving mind, but not so much that my |
| 38 |
brains fall out and get eaten by zombies. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
Archives