Re: [OT] Software politics (was Re: [Pan-users] Re: Questions about the next release)

[Ron Johnson]

On 11/13/2010 06:31 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 11/13/2010 11:08 AM, Duncan wrote:
> > > Steve Davies posted on Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:40:07 +0000 as excerpted:
> > >
> > > > I particularly like the Servantware references...
> > >
> > > FWIW, I've been thinking, on and off, that I need to figure out some
> > > reasonable way to explain that such references are a reflection
> > > of my own
> > > ethics and value system and that I believe just as strongly that
> > > attempting to force them on other users (the servantware masters
> > > deserve
> > > what they'd get, after all, they're disrespecting my rights at
> > > least as
> > > much as they expect me not to disrespect their rights to assert
> > > control
> > > over stuff they wrote... obviously something they don't have to
> > > particularly worry about, since I'd be unlikely to run it anyway
> > > given the
> > > practical issues of trying to run blackbox software I don't trust
> > > the
> > > ethics of the creators of) not ready to voluntarily choose them
> > > would as
> > > equally strongly betray those same values.
> > >
> > > It's gotta be a personal choice.
> >
> > Your uber-earnest Marx-like writing style (dude, that 11 line
> > "paragraph" is ONE SENTENCE!) and use of emotionally-laded words
> > like "servantware" belie your assertion that we all should make
> > our own choices.
>
> As opposed to *your* choice of emotionally laden terms like the
> Nazi-esque "uber" instead of good-old English "overly", and your

I'm the responder, not the initiator.

> completely irrelevant comparison of Duncan's writing style to that
> of Marx? If he wrote like Mother Teressa, would that make him a
> short Romanian nun with an unjustified reputation as the epitome of
> charity and piety?

Nice debating technique trying to change the subject from *writing 
style* to "physical appearance".

> If you think that the use of run-on sentences is an attack on your
> freedom of choice,  your hat probably needs an extra layer of
> tin-foil.

Another failed attempt to twist my words.

>           The right to make your own choice is not in contradiction
> to the right of people to use emotionally laden terms to persuade.

But they certainly are less effective.

> Besides, try reading Samuel Pepys someday. People back then could
> make sentences run on for three or four pages! Literally.

So, because Samuel Pepys wrote run-on "pages" in literal chicken 
scratch (I looked it up in Wikipedia) that makes it ok for Duncan to 
do it?

Your post is replete with fallacies.

--
Seek truth from facts.