Re: Pull is Mostly Evil

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
To: James Denholm <nod.helm@gmail.com>
Cc: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>,
	David Lang <david@lang.hm>, Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>,
	Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Pull is Mostly Evil
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 09:48:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sioqugpg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eae08db4-f59f-4237-8f04-ebf33dbf6f67@email.android.com> (James Denholm's message of "Sun, 04 May 2014 16:50:58 +1000")

James Denholm <nod.helm@gmail.com> writes:

> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>David Lang wrote:
>>> the vast majority of people here do not take that attitude.
>>
>>It's actually the exact opposite. I don't care what is the track record
>>of the people in the discussion.
>
> Ah, yes, like that discussion we once had where you totally
> didn't run `git log | grep James Denholm` at one point to demonstrate
> that I had not yet made any
> contributions,instead of actually engaging in discussion. Oh,
> wait.

It's called an "ad hominem attack", and it's a very common and very
effective rhetorical device.

Cf
<URL:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/246598/focus=247002>

> The problem, though, is that time and time again you've
> shown that you value your own arguments to the exclusion
> of all others. You can't tell if someone else's argument is
>  good, because it runs against yours, and yours must be
> right because you hold it.

If he considered others capable of independent thought, would he call
out their imperviousness to rhetorics as a deficiency?

-- 
David Kastrup