Re: Understanding #:substitutable? and #55231

[Maxime Devos]

> [ZFS (il)legality links]

This isn't the place for that. If you believe there are some new and 
correct arguments for/against compatibility, that's something for a 
separate thread. Some of these are old news.

> > And pointing this out to them doesn't seem to ever work.
> >
> > It has been some time ago, but I probably suspected it wouldn't work in
> > this case either.
> Not to be offensive, but I find these statements to be very dismissive of those 
> who disagree with you about ZFS distribution as well as both their reasoning 
> for their position and their openness to differing viewpoints or new 
> information.

This is a mischaracterisation - both of what I said in the mail you are 
responding to, and the reality of what happened in the ZFS discussions.

It is indeed dismissive, but the dismissiveness is not 'because I 
disagree with them', it's because of:

 * their slander(*) (see: Mason Loring Bliss) (also, to a much lesser 
extent, right now you - I don't think this quoting out 
context+misinterpretation _technically_ counts as slander, but it's 
something bad nonetheless)
 * their rudeness (see: raid5atemyhomework) (also Mason Loring Bliss, 
since slander is rude)
 * their hypocrisy as a group (see: they claim it can be fine because 
of non-binary distribution, but they never change Guix to _make_ the ZFS 
stuff non-binary)
 * repeating _old_ information as an argument/counter-argument, even 
though it has already been made and replied to, without providing more 
explanation or another interpretation (see: Mason Loring Bliss. Maybe 
others, but in particular I recall Mason Loring Bliss doing this).

(*) In ordinary sense, without distinguishing between exact forms of 
defamation, and not evaluating whether illegal or legal.

Sometimes, being dismissive, is a perfectly reasonable response. As long 
as it's for the right reasons, well-founded, and with evidence.

Also, the 'dismissiveness to [others with different viewpoint]' is the 
other way around (see: previous points).

Regards,
Maxime Devos