Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751459Ab3GXKuz (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:50:55 -0400 Received: from v4.rz.uni-leipzig.de ([139.18.1.30]:45379 "EHLO v4.rz.uni-leipzig.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751174Ab3GXKuy (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:50:54 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 428 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:50:54 EDT Message-ID: <51EFAFD7.5070408@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:43:35 +0200 From: Florian Holz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130701 Icedove/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sarah Sharp CC: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Guenter Roeck , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Steven Rostedt , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review References: <20130715155202.GC29526@xanatos> <20130715174659.GC15531@xanatos> <20130715180403.GD15531@xanatos> In-Reply-To: <20130715195316.GF15531@xanatos> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 OpenPGP: id=92FDAD98; url=http://random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1701 Lines: 44 Hi, just a short comment. I think, this snippet shows the key point in this argument: At 15.07.2013 21:53 CEST +02:00 Sarah Sharp wrote: > Good lord. So anyone that is one of your "top maintainers" could be > exposed to your verbal abuse just because they "should have known > better"? > > You know what the definition of an abuser is? Someone that seeks out > victims that they know will "just take it" and keep the abuse "between > the two of them". They pick victims that won't fight back or report the > abuse. > Sarah introduced the term "abuse" like in the first paragraph into the discussion while complaining about the tone in some statements. It's her claim, that all non-"polite" statements are an "abuse". In the second paragraph, then she argues that "abuse" should be prevented, using some definition of "abuse". The claim that the unwanted kind of statements are really a kind of abuse is still unfounded. She could have proven it -- eg by using its/her/a definition -- but she only used this definition as foundation to dislike the non-"polite" statements. Imho this is just circular reasoning [1] > (I) dislike -> (I regard as) impolite -> kind of abuse -> to be disliked (by all) and so has no substance up to now. Maybe, logical package management would have recognized this unmet dependency ;) Disclaimer: I dont' question the implication "abuse -> to be disliked". Flo [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/