Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> I'm surprised you get ice there. Here in Virginia we get lots of
>> slick ice in the winter since the temperature keeps crossing the
>> freezing point. Snow falls, half-melts, then refreezes, over and
>> over again, all winter. Much further north, I figured it would
>> stay below freezing the whole winter, and, while there may be
>> plenty of snow, there would be little or no slick ice.
> Sometimes, Keith, I despair.
> Get a clue about the world, eh?
You remind me of the kids I went to school with. They would pounce on
any admission of ignorance by anyone. This caused people to refrain
from asking questions and learning things. And that resulted in more
and more ignorance.
That's not an attitude I ever epxected to find in fandom.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Mike Ash
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Doug Wickstr�m <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> I'm surprised you get ice there. Here in Virginia we get lots of
> >> slick ice in the winter since the temperature keeps crossing the
> >> freezing point. Snow falls, half-melts, then refreezes, over and
> >> over again, all winter. Much further north, I figured it would
> >> stay below freezing the whole winter, and, while there may be
> >> plenty of snow, there would be little or no slick ice.
>
> > Sometimes, Keith, I despair.
>
> > Get a clue about the world, eh?
>
> You remind me of the kids I went to school with. They would pounce on
> any admission of ignorance by anyone. This caused people to refrain
> from asking questions and learning things. And that resulted in more
> and more ignorance.
>
> That's not an attitude I ever epxected to find in fandom.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I personally have no problem
when you admit to ignorance. It's all the stuff that comes before that,
wherein you assert facts that are not true and indicate not one iota of
doubt, which irritate me.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Kurt Busiek
> In article <hgj2bv$fm0$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Doug Wickström <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm surprised you get ice there. Here in Virginia we get lots of
>>>> slick ice in the winter since the temperature keeps crossing the
>>>> freezing point. Snow falls, half-melts, then refreezes, over and
>>>> over again, all winter. Much further north, I figured it would
>>>> stay below freezing the whole winter, and, while there may be
>>>> plenty of snow, there would be little or no slick ice.
>>
>>> Sometimes, Keith, I despair.
>>
>>> Get a clue about the world, eh?
>>
>> You remind me of the kids I went to school with. They would pounce on
>> any admission of ignorance by anyone. This caused people to refrain
>> from asking questions and learning things. And that resulted in more
>> and more ignorance.
>>
>> That's not an attitude I ever epxected to find in fandom.
>
> I can only speak for myself, of course, but I personally have no problem
> when you admit to ignorance. It's all the stuff that comes before that,
> wherein you assert facts that are not true and indicate not one iota of
> doubt, which irritate me.
And then when he gets pissy about someone calling him on his ignorance,
because it won't encourage him to ask questions. Except he wasn't
asking questions, he was leaping to ignorant conclusions. Apparently,
discouraging him from that would be rude and unhelpful...
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
cryptoguy
> On 2009-12-19 18:58:46 -0800, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <hgj2bv$fm...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>>> I'm surprised you get ice there. Here in Virginia we get lots of
> >>>> slick ice in the winter since the temperature keeps crossing the
> >>>> freezing point. Snow falls, half-melts, then refreezes, over and
> >>>> over again, all winter. Much further north, I figured it would
> >>>> stay below freezing the whole winter, and, while there may be
> >>>> plenty of snow, there would be little or no slick ice.
>
> >>> Sometimes, Keith, I despair.
>
> >>> Get a clue about the world, eh?
>
> >> You remind me of the kids I went to school with. They would pounce on
> >> any admission of ignorance by anyone. This caused people to refrain
> >> from asking questions and learning things. And that resulted in more
> >> and more ignorance.
>
> >> That's not an attitude I ever epxected to find in fandom.
>
> > I can only speak for myself, of course, but I personally have no problem
> > when you admit to ignorance. It's all the stuff that comes before that,
> > wherein you assert facts that are not true and indicate not one iota of
> > doubt, which irritate me.
>
> And then when he gets pissy about someone calling him on his ignorance,
> because it won't encourage him to ask questions. Except he wasn't
> asking questions, he was leaping to ignorant conclusions. Apparently,
> discouraging him from that would be rude and unhelpful...
At the risk of seeming to be "piling on", Keith, what is said above is
true. This isn't your junior high school. There, strongly asserting
knowledge you did not possess was often a working strategy, because
the other students were even more ignorant. Bluffing often worked.
Here, you're dealing with a group of (over?) educated adults, many of
whom have decades of experience with aspects of the world you don't.
You really do come off as frequently asserting things that are simply
incorrect. In this case, "You're surprised they get ice there." If
this had been phrased as, for example, "I didn't think you got ice up
there; how does that happen?" it would probably not have got quite the
same reaction.
pt
cryptoguy
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> I'm surprised you get ice there. Here in Virginia we get lots of
> >> slick ice in the winter since the temperature keeps crossing the
> >> freezing point. Snow falls, half-melts, then refreezes, over and
> >> over again, all winter. Much further north, I figured it would
> >> stay below freezing the whole winter, and, while there may be
> >> plenty of snow, there would be little or no slick ice.
Apropos the snow->ice transition, and the ice skating topic, I wonder
to what extent we're factoring friction into the equation. Any skier
or skater knows that there is a certain stick/slip factor in moving on
frozen water of any kind. A stationary skier or skater has to use a
bit of extra force to start from a dead stop.
Avalanches take place in very cold snow, but when the avalanche ends,
there is enough liquid water in the system that the snow re-freezes
into a solid mass. I've seen this myself in the Alps, skiing across
avalanche debris is like trying to cross the banks left behind by a
snowplow; not fun. It's also a serious issue for people caught
snowslides; at the end, the snow re-freezes around them like concrete,
trapping them.
Making snowballs also comes to mind - with enough pressure, you can
make snowballs from any type of snow (the colder, the more difficult).
Regardless of the phase diagram, these are real phenomena. They
suggest to me that real, dynamic systems are more complex than the
static lab models.
pt
David Goldfarb
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>In article <hgj2bv$fm0$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> You remind me of the kids I went to school with. They would pounce on
>> any admission of ignorance by anyone.
>
>when you admit to ignorance. It's all the stuff that comes before that,
>wherein you assert facts that are not true and indicate not one iota of
>doubt, which irritate me.
This.
--
David Goldfarb | "You do it. I'm bitter."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- MST3K
Keith F. Lynch
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm surprised you get ice there. �Here in Virginia we get lots
>>>>>> of slick ice in the winter since the temperature keeps crossing
>>>>>> the freezing point. �Snow falls, half-melts, then refreezes,
>>>>>> over and over again, all winter. �Much further north, I figured
>>>>>> it would stay below freezing the whole winter, and, while there
>>>>>> may be plenty of snow, there would be little or no slick ice.
>>>>> Sometimes, Keith, I despair.
>>>>> Get a clue about the world, eh?
>>>> You remind me of the kids I went to school with. �They would
>>>> pounce on any admission of ignorance by anyone. �This caused
>>>> people to refrain from asking questions and learning things.
>>>> And that resulted in more and more ignorance.
>>>> That's not an attitude I ever epxected to find in fandom.
>>> I can only speak for myself, of course, but I personally have no
>>> problem when you admit to ignorance. It's all the stuff that
>>> comes before that, wherein you assert facts that are not true and
>>> indicate not one iota of doubt, which irritate me.
Cite? When have I done that?
>> And then when he gets pissy about someone calling him on his
>> ignorance, because it won't encourage him to ask questions.
>> Except he wasn't asking questions, he was leaping to ignorant
>> conclusions. �Apparently, discouraging him from that would be
>> rude and unhelpful...
Cite? When have I done that?
> At the risk of seeming to be "piling on", Keith, what is said above
> is true. This isn't your junior high school. There, strongly
> asserting knowledge you did not possess was often a working
> strategy, because the other students were even more ignorant.
> Bluffing often worked.
I wouldn't know.
> Here, you're dealing with a group of (over?) educated adults,
> many of whom have decades of experience with aspects of the world
> you don't.
Indeed. Which is why I ask questions. I want to learn.
> You really do come off as frequently asserting things that are
> simply incorrect. In this case, "You're surprised they get
> ice there."
You're claiming you know better than I do what I find surprising?
> If this had been phrased as, for example, "I didn't think you got
> ice up there; how does that happen?" it would probably not have got
> quite the same reaction.
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension, since that's just a
paraphrase of what I did say.
Why don't we all treat each other with basic respect and courtesy, and
discuss substantive issues rather than engage in pointless pileups and
gotchas? Why don't we all assume we're all competent and knowledgeable
adults who are discussing things in good faith? If there are two ways
to interpret something someone says, why not give them the benefit of
the doubt rather than always automatically choosing the interpretation
that makes them sound like an idiot or a liar, resulting in a cascade
of alternating defensive and attacking messages? Is it so much more
fun to attack?
I have over 200 messages flagged as needing replies, and am falling
further and further behind. Most of them are substantive. I'm
strongly tempted to adopt a zero tolerance policy: Anyone who appears
to be more interested in assuming bad faith so as to attack and
attempt to damage reputations, I won't bother to respond to, but will
simply killfile. That way I'll have time to respond to the majority
of people who are interested in worthwhile discussions.
cryptoguy
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
No Keith. You were ignorant of the subject, and should be self-aware
of that ignorance. There is no reason to be surprised when finding
the truth about a subject of which you are ignorant. Being surprised
indicates that you had, without information, formed an opinion, and
were surprised to find you were wrong.
This is the problem: you often seem to assert opinions you've formed
in the absence of information.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> No Keith. You were ignorant of the subject,
I've never denied it. That's why I was asking.
> and should be self-aware of that ignorance. There is no reason to
> be surprised when finding the truth about a subject of which you
> are ignorant. Being surprised indicates that you had, without
> information, formed an opinion, and were surprised to find you
> were wrong.
Learning works best when you use your knowledge and powers of
deduction to form an opinion before looking up the answer.
> This is the problem: you often seem to assert opinions you've
> formed in the absence of information.
Wrong. I do often ask questions. And you often criticize me for
doing so.
I'm reluctant to killfile you, as you do sometimes post worthwhile
things, and as you've been active in online fandom almost as long as
I have. (Your first post to the SF-LOVERS email list was on November
28, 1982, just five days and 36 minutes after my first post there.)
But lately you seem more interested in trying to trash my reputation
than in discussing anything substantive.
Mike Ash
I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that UTF-8 increases the
size of all messages by 2-300%. I've mentioned this to you on several
separate occasions and you have yet to reply. Maybe they've all just
happened to fall into the category of messages that you're falling
further behind on, but since you seem to have no trouble replying to
recent messages, and your participation in that whole conversation just
*happened* to cease right when I brought out my credentials and
challenged you to do the same, I have trouble believing that
interpretation.
Keith F. Lynch
> I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that UTF-8 increases
> the size of all messages by 2-300%.
I made no such claim. Are you sure I wasn't talking about UTF-16?
> I've mentioned this to you on several separate occasions and you
> have yet to reply. Maybe they've all just happened to fall into
> the category of messages that you're falling further behind on, but
> since you seem to have no trouble replying to recent messages,
Yes, I typically reply to messages in reverse order. For one thing,
that often lets me reply to two or more messages at once. For
another, if I were replying in forward order I'd be replying today to
messages from about 1993. For a third thing, it lets me skip messages
others have responded to in the way I would have.
I'd be glad to provide a list of messages I have flagged as needing
replies. But the list will only be meaningful to Panix users, as I
have them listed by Panix message number.
> and your participation in that whole conversation just *happened* to
> cease right when I brought out my credentials and challenged you to
> do the same, I have trouble believing that interpretation.
If you are going to impugn bad faith, that's a sign that you're either
uninterested or unable to discuss issues in good faith. Do it again
and I'll dump you in my killfile and delete your messages from my
stack of messages to be replied to. That will increase the number
of good-faith messages from I'm able to respond to. This is your
only warning.
Mike Ash
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that UTF-8 increases
> > the size of all messages by 2-300%.
>
> I made no such claim. Are you sure I wasn't talking about UTF-16?
Yeah, I thought you might say that. And Google's useless search function
didn't help me find the original message. But yes, I'm sure it was
UTF-8. I realize this makes it your word against mine. I don't really
care. There are plenty of other examples from that discussion, and
others.
> > and your participation in that whole conversation just *happened* to
> > cease right when I brought out my credentials and challenged you to
> > do the same, I have trouble believing that interpretation.
>
> If you are going to impugn bad faith, that's a sign that you're either
> uninterested or unable to discuss issues in good faith. Do it again
> and I'll dump you in my killfile and delete your messages from my
> stack of messages to be replied to. That will increase the number
> of good-faith messages from I'm able to respond to. This is your
> only warning.
Ooh, scary. Fire away!
David DeLaney
>> and your participation in that whole conversation just *happened* to
>> cease right when I brought out my credentials and challenged you to
>> do the same, I have trouble believing that interpretation.
>
>If you are going to impugn bad faith, that's a sign that you're either
>uninterested or unable to discuss issues in good faith. Do it again
>and I'll dump you in my killfile and delete your messages from my
>stack of messages to be replied to. That will increase the number
>of good-faith messages from I'm able to respond to. This is your
>only warning.
Being killfiled by Keith: threat? or menace?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>> I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that UTF-8
>>> increases the size of all messages by 2-300%.
>> I made no such claim. Are you sure I wasn't talking about UTF-16?
> Yeah, I thought you might say that. And Google's useless search
> function didn't help me find the original message. But yes, I'm sure
> it was UTF-8. I realize this makes it your word against mine.
Plenty of people reading this thread have newsfeeds that haven't yet
expired any messages in this thread. If this alleged message exists,
no doubt one of them can find it, and will produce it here.
> I don't really care.
Well, I do. I'm sick and tired of having not only my competence but
my honesty questioned. Invariably without evidence, of course. I'm
not going to put up with it any longer.
> There are plenty of other examples from that discussion, and others.
Produce one or STFU.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <hgpciu$seu$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>> and your participation in that whole conversation just *happened* to
>>> cease right when I brought out my credentials and challenged you to
>>> do the same, I have trouble believing that interpretation.
>>
>> If you are going to impugn bad faith, that's a sign that you're either
>> uninterested or unable to discuss issues in good faith. Do it again
>> and I'll dump you in my killfile
> Ooh, scary. Fire away!
Yeah, that's right. If Keith appears to be acting in bad faith and you
notice, that's evidence that you,. not he, are acting in bad faith.
Trying to get him to act in good faith is an act of bad faith.
As ever: It's like Savardworld without the explosions and vat-grown women.
Mike Ash
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that UTF-8
> >>> increases the size of all messages by 2-300%.
>
> >> I made no such claim. Are you sure I wasn't talking about UTF-16?
>
> > Yeah, I thought you might say that. And Google's useless search
> > function didn't help me find the original message. But yes, I'm sure
> > it was UTF-8. I realize this makes it your word against mine.
>
> Plenty of people reading this thread have newsfeeds that haven't yet
> expired any messages in this thread. If this alleged message exists,
> no doubt one of them can find it, and will produce it here.
>
> > I don't really care.
>
> Well, I do. I'm sick and tired of having not only my competence but
> my honesty questioned. Invariably without evidence, of course. I'm
> not going to put up with it any longer.
>
> > There are plenty of other examples from that discussion, and others.
>
> Produce one or STFU.
As you wish.
In this one, you claimed that "the various ISOs" preserve one character
per byte, but UTF-8 does not:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/msg/d02650ab80931bcc
This is blatantly false on its face, as UTF-8 is an ISO standard.
In this one, you claim that smart quotes are proprietary Microsoft
characters not part of any non-MS standard:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/msg/e9d4efca8083c8e3
But smart quotes are in Unicode which, as previously mentioned, is an
ISO standard.
In this one, you state that UTF-8's variable length encoding "makes it
incompatible with nearly everything":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/msg/9e65fd511003b14c
But in fact, it's the variable-length encoding which makes UTF-8
ASCII-compatible, which in turn makes it possible to use UTF-8 with
legacy software with little to no changes.
And the smoking gun, which I finally tracked down, wherein you claim
that using unicode "doubles or triples the sizes of all emails":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/msg/a9f927b885e26883
Now go on, wriggle out of it. Or prove me right about bad faith and
ignore this message too.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>In article <hgpciu$seu$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>> > I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that UTF-8 increases
>> > the size of all messages by 2-300%.
>>
>> I made no such claim. Are you sure I wasn't talking about UTF-16?
>
>Yeah, I thought you might say that. And Google's useless search function
>didn't help me find the original message. But yes, I'm sure it was
>UTF-8. I realize this makes it your word against mine. I don't really
>care. There are plenty of other examples from that discussion, and
>others.
I haven't, so far at least, found one where he accused UTF-8
specifically; but how 'bout one where he alleges it for Unicode in
general:
<heru46$oq0$1...@reader1.panix.com>
>ISO-8859-1 extends ASCII to include accented letters. There are other
>eight-bit character sets for other alphabets. Unicode is useful for
>someone who wants to read a mixture, on the same page, of Arabic,
>Japanese, Hebrew, Korean, Greek, and Russian. I don't think the other
>99.99% of us should have to put up with an ecoding that doubles or
>triples the sizes of all emails, newsgroup postings, blog entries, and
>web pages, breaks nearly all existing software, and makes new software
>much harder to write, for the convenience of that 0.01%.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Bill Snyder
wrote:
So it's what's left after the "good parts version" is extracted?
Wayne Throop
: I haven't, so far at least, found one where he accused UTF-8
: specifically; but how 'bout one where he alleges it for Unicode in
: general:
:
:: <heru46$oq0$1...@reader1.panix.com>
:: ISO-8859-1 extends ASCII to include accented letters. There are
:: other eight-bit character sets for other alphabets. Unicode is
:: useful for someone who wants to read a mixture, on the same page, of
:: Arabic, Japanese, Hebrew, Korean, Greek, and Russian. I don't think
:: the other 99.99% of us should have to put up with an ecoding that
:: doubles or triples the sizes of all emails, newsgroup postings, blog
:: entries, and web pages, breaks nearly all existing software, and
:: makes new software much harder to write, for the convenience of that
:: 0.01%.
The "put up with an encoding that doubles or triples the sizes of all
emails" is a straw man at best, since nobody proposed it. The "breaks
nearly all existing software" is an extreme exaggeration at best,
for two reasons, first because any parts of messages that happen to be
7-bit ascii remain unchanged in the encoding actually under discussion
in that thread, and because characterizing what software does with the
exceptional cases as "breaking" is overblown. Further, the "nearly all"
is flat wrong, and "new software harder to write" doesn't seem much more
accurate, given the tools now available.
So all in all, even at the most generous, a pack of half-truths
packed in a significant amount of straw in mannequin form.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Doug Wickström
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:04:29 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm still waiting for you to address your claim that UTF-8
>>>> increases the size of all messages by 2-300%.
>
>>> I made no such claim. Are you sure I wasn't talking about UTF-16?
>
>> Yeah, I thought you might say that. And Google's useless search
>> function didn't help me find the original message. But yes, I'm sure
>> it was UTF-8. I realize this makes it your word against mine.
>
>Plenty of people reading this thread have newsfeeds that haven't yet
>expired any messages in this thread. If this alleged message exists,
>no doubt one of them can find it, and will produce it here.
Be careful what you wish for, because on Saturday, 28 November
2009, in message heru46$oq0$1...@reader1.panix.com,
you wrote:
:ISO-8859-1 extends ASCII to include accented letters. There are other
:eight-bit character sets for other alphabets. Unicode is useful for
:someone who wants to read a mixture, on the same page, of Arabic,
:Japanese, Hebrew, Korean, Greek, and Russian. I don't think the other
:99.99% of us should have to put up with an ecoding that doubles or
:triples the sizes of all emails, newsgroup postings, blog entries, and
:web pages, breaks nearly all existing software, and makes new software
:much harder to write, for the convenience of that 0.01%.
"[D]oubles or triples" amounts to increases of 100-200%.
Admittedly that isn't _exactly_ the same as 2-300%, but it's a
close ballpark figure to what you actually claimed. And what you
claimed is demonstrably untrue.
--
Doug Wickström
Mike Ash
Doug Wickström <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
Ugh, stupid percentages. I *meant* an increase of 2-3x, which is 1-200%,
but forgot to subtract off the original 100 and wrote 2-300% instead. My
bad.
The message you quote is exactly the one I was looking for, as you can
see from the post I made where I finally tracked it down too.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>If you are going to impugn bad faith, that's a sign that you're either
>uninterested or unable to discuss issues in good faith.
"Impute," or possibly "imply" or "infer," but not "impugn."
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Dimensional Traveler
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>> and your participation in that whole conversation just *happened* to
>>> cease right when I brought out my credentials and challenged you to
>>> do the same, I have trouble believing that interpretation.
>> If you are going to impugn bad faith, that's a sign that you're either
>> uninterested or unable to discuss issues in good faith. Do it again
>> and I'll dump you in my killfile and delete your messages from my
>> stack of messages to be replied to. That will increase the number
>> of good-faith messages from I'm able to respond to. This is your
>> only warning.
>
> Being killfiled by Keith: threat? or menace?
>
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
"Michal Dwuznik (Michał Dwużnik)"
>
> Now go on, wriggle out of it. Or prove me right about bad faith and
> ignore this message too.
>
Michal
Mike Ash
<csp0j5dkvojdhaghk...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:57:34 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >If you are going to impugn bad faith, that's a sign that you're either
> >uninterested or unable to discuss issues in good faith.
>
> "Impute," or possibly "imply" or "infer," but not "impugn."
Maybe he's offended that I would lower the reputation of bad faith by
associating it with Keith.
(For the humor-impaired: this is a joke. I may be open to the
possibility that Keith is operating in bad faith in this respect, but I
don't see it as being a particularly grave offense as these things go.)
Szymon Sokół
> Ugh, stupid percentages. I *meant* an increase of 2-3x, which is 1-200%,
> but forgot to subtract off the original 100 and wrote 2-300% instead. My
> bad.
"2-3x" is "100-200%" increase. As you have written it, it might get
misunderstood (1% increase is not "2-3x").
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
William December Starr
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) said:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> [ addressing Mike Ash: ] If you are going to impugn bad faith,
>> that's a sign that you're either uninterested or unable to
>> discuss issues in good faith. Do it again and I'll dump you in
>> my killfile and delete your messages from my stack of messages
>> to be replied to. That will increase the number of good-faith
>> messages from I'm able to respond to. This is your only
>> warning.
>
> Being killfiled by Keith: threat? or menace?
I threaten you with my mighty menace!
-- wds
David Loewe, Jr.
I had one...
--
"There is a time and a place for tact (and there are times
when tact is entirely misplaced)."
-Laurence VanCott Niven