From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: Pull is Mostly Evil Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 09:48:59 +0200 Message-ID: <87sioqugpg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <5363BB9F.40102@xiplink.com> <5364A143.1060404@bbn.com> <87iopnwa2i.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5364b11b4db8d_1996f531068@nysa.notmuch> <87eh0bw5gh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5365c45fd101d_6c25cd72ec2e@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Felipe Contreras , David Lang , Richard Hansen , Junio C Hamano , Marc Branchaud , Git Mailing List To: James Denholm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun May 04 09:49:21 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WgrAk-0002CY-EW for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 09:49:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752860AbaEDHtP (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2014 03:49:15 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:35294 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752541AbaEDHtO (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2014 03:49:14 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34334 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WgrAe-0004Mw-OU; Sun, 04 May 2014 03:49:13 -0400 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 92558E08BB; Sun, 4 May 2014 09:48:59 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (James Denholm's message of "Sun, 04 May 2014 16:50:58 +1000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: James Denholm 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 > 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