| 1 |
On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:14:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > - Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels |
| 6 |
> > better" don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively |
| 7 |
> > wrong for me, so they have no place in a technical discussion |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You mean like "EAPI in the filename feels bad"? I agree, that has no |
| 10 |
> place in a technical discussion. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > > Not once has there been an equally good alternative proposed. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > That's subjective, and let me be the first one to disagree. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> No, it's entirely objective. GLEP 55 clearly shows how the filename |
| 17 |
> based options are objectively better than anything else. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Ciaran ... you're obviously trying to bait people here. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Please don't do that. Trolling is not something you should do on public |
| 22 |
mailing lists. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I could spend lots of time trying to dissect your monologue, but if you are |
| 25 |
unwilling to accept that your opinion is subjective and that my opinion may |
| 26 |
differ from yours any further communication would be futile. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Now you may still think (subjective thing, that) that glep55 is the best |
| 29 |
solution. And I, with the same subjectivity, think it isn't. Trying to weasel |
| 30 |
your way around that with semantic games is not going to change the objective |
| 31 |
reality we both share. Get used to it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
And once you get used to that we can start a dialogue. Imagine that. |
Archives