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

[Steven D'Aprano]

Ron Johnson wrote:

> > > 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.

Even if true, what relevance does that have? Duncan was also responding 
to something else. If it's okay for you to use emotion-laden terms 
because you're the "responder", why isn't it okay for Duncan? Why should 
the "initiator" be forced to write without emotion? Who gave you the 
authority to force these rules on the rest of us?


> > 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".

"Unjustified reputation" is hardly a physical appearance.

I'm afraid that the point of my comment has gone straight over your 
head. My point is that, whatever characteristics Marx may have had, 
Duncan no more shares them merely because of the occasional run-on 
sentence than he would share Mother Teressa's nationality, occupation 
and reputation merely because of a vague similarity in writing style.

Or, more concisely, your comparison of Duncan to Marx is completely 
irrelevant except as an emotive attempt to associate him with a supposed 
authoritarian who would take away your freedoms.


> > 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.

"Twist"? You draw a direct cause-and-effect link between the length of 
Duncan's sentence and his supposed (by you) hypocrisy in supporting 
people making their own choice about software.


[...]
> 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?

That word you use, "literal"... I don't think it means what you think it 
means.

And yes, it is okay for Duncan to write a run-on sentence. Who are you, 
the style police? His sentence, while long-ish and a little confused, 
was perfectly understandable.


> Your post is replete with fallacies.

Yeah, whatever you say.



--
Steven