Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 21:22, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>>Nice job cutting out context, nincompoop.
>
>
> I understood your context completely. The problem is that it is
> _conflicting_. Again, you stated (_complete_):
>
> Statement #1 (_complete_):
> "There are better things to be offended/snippy/whatever at than the
> fact that some of us just aren't interested in trying Fedora out
> for ourselves any time soon."
>
> First off, I wasn't "offended." Quit thinking I'm "offended." For
> someone who constantly states *I* answer for others in ways they did not
> intend, you seem to do it just as much as I.
I knew in advance that you'd have a problem with any word, no matter
what it was, that I chose. That's why I said
"offended/snippy/whatever". Apparently, you still lack those important
reading comprehension skills, though. I'm not insisting that your
problem is in taking offense (though I suspect that it is, no matter how
much you deny it in your typically passive-aggressive manner). I left
it an uncertain term, just intending to refer to the fact that you were
being "whatever". Get it? Have we learned to read yet?
>
> Secondly, you seem to state that you aren't interested in trying out
> Fedora, and I shouldn't take offense/snippy/whatever at that. The
> problem is we get entire threads on people who are talking from 2nd or
> 3rd hand experience. And then when someone like myself with 1st hand
> experience tries to introduce some fact, the 2nd and 3rd hand
> speculation continues. That's _exactly_ what was going on!
As I said in another email, YOU ARE SECOND HAND EXPERIENCE to me. Why
should I put any more credence in what you say than in what others have
said? It's not all about you.
>
> And I tire of letting it reach a dozen plus posts. I don't care if its
> Red Hat, Microsoft, SuSE, Apple, etc... Speculation, 2nd or 3rd hand
> views, assumptions, etc... can build an entire "truth" of their own.
> One that seems to be impossible to break because it is a "major
> assumption" perceived as fact.
So, when several people are content to have an amicable discussion where
we all COMPARE NOTES, because EVERYONE'S OPINIONS AND EXPERIENCES SHOULD
BE WEIGHED INDEPENDENTLY rather than simply being discarded for not
coming from YOU, then you decide to start telling us that we're doing
something wrong.
By the way, I've used SuSE and Mac systems, and I just spent a couple
hours working on a Windows system (which I do for a living). I've even
tried out RHL myself, though I haven't given Fedora a spin and don't
care to at this time. Don't assume that, just because I typically use
Debian, I don't know anything about any other OSes.
>
> Statement #2 (again, _complete_):
> "You're getting sanctimonious again.
> How the fu . . . heck do you expect people to learn about things they
> don't know about if they're not willing to examine it, discuss it,
> now and then? Shut the hell up and stop being pissy just because not
> everybody in the world is glued to your ass."
>
> I honest expect people to learn by _doing_. 2nd hand knowledge has a
> tendency to become 3rd hand and a set of assumptions, and then that
> turns into a whole thread of those. This was clearly heading that way.
Oh, so nobody should ever DARE to try to benefit from the experience of
others (unless it's you), I suppose.
>
> In addition to stating that Red Hat overstates its installation
> requirements as a "worst case scenario" (no swap, UMA for video RAM,
> many other issues, etc...), I offered a comment on Alan Cox, a statement
> I got from him _first_hand_ on the Fedora list when someone complained
> about the "GUI requirements" of Fedora. Fedora Core 2 introduced XFCE
> for this _exact_ reason, and Alan confirmed that he was running it.
>
> A 2nd or 3rd hand viewpoint thread _may_ be healthy as long as 1st hand
> people aren't being drowned out. The problem is that 2nd and 3rd hand
> tend to dominate, and this discussion was going that route rather
> quickly. In fact, I stayed out of the previous Apple discussion until
> your "unfamiliarity" with how notebook PCs and Apples work was very
> noticeable.
Actually, the problem is that much of the time your first hand
experience is buried in a marginally off-topic pedantic ramble, and thus
people tend to skim over it. Besides, when a bunch of people are just
throwing their information into the hat, and we haven't started sorting
it out yet, you don't know how much credence or hearing your first hand
experience is going to get. You just decided that, after something like
half a dozen posts, you would set everyone straight. Get over yourself.
>
>
>>Maybe I should start doing that with your messages, and splice the
>>pieces together to make you sound like a member of the KKK. It might
>>take a little work, but I'm pretty sure I could do it.
>
>
> Go ahead. You do what you want. At this point, you seem to be more
> than ready to accuse me of many things that you yourself are guilty of.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
>
> And that's the difference between me and you. I'll admit my faults. I
> don't try to go around "correcting" your posting approach, lambasting
> your various insults, etc..., because I'd be hypocritical for me to do
> so. But you seem up to do _exactly_ that of me.
No, I have faults. I'll admit to them. I just don't want to let you
get away with being a shit when it interferes with others' enjoyment of
this list. I've also refrained from getting into it with you except in
instances when you specifically target me, or a small group including
me, in the various mailing lists we share. If you feel persecuted,
perhaps you should check back to where you picked the fight.
>
>
>>If you had any ability to stay on-topic when you fly off into one of
>>your "explanations",
>
>
> This "issue" with me has come up numerous times. The problem is I'm
> torn between the "gurus" who don't want to hear it because they already
> know it, the "noobies" who might come back to read it later or the
> "Google crawler" that tags it and people find it.
You're way off the point, here. I have no problem at all with you
providing a long, in-depth explanation of something. What I have a
(BIG) problem with is when you respond to a simple question with a
six-page discussion of something orthogonal to the matter that doesn't
actually answer the question. I'm also typically slightly put off by
the fact that you seem obsessed with turning every single discussion
into a soapbox for you to stand on while pontificating about Red Hat's
wonders.
The fact that I tend to agree with you about much of Red Hat's business
practices and support of the community doesn't change the fact that it's
absurd for you to turn discussions of Debian, SuSE, et cetera into
billboards for advertising your favorite distribution.
>
> In reality, I try to summarize lightly at the top, and then bottom-post
> details as I see appropriate. Sometimes I'm not sure what depth or what
> "additional information" is required. And I'm sure I will _never_
> "please everyone."
That's a great tactic. Just try to actually answer the question that
was raised first, and strongly tie what you're pontificating on to some
relevant subject matter.
>
> In fact, given that a question only comes from 2-3 people, I'm sure
> _many_ of my posts are rather "unnecessary" from the standpoint of
> _most_ people's viewpoints. So why do I bother the list with all that
> verbage?
>
> Because there's typically 1 person who appreciates them. Regularly I'll
> get a message from a list subscriber that says something like, "Your
> verbage used to annoyment until you answered one of my questions.
> Because you not only answered it, but several others that I could have
> also asked."
>
> So you can comment, complain and otherwise "get sick of me," but I know
> why I post as much as I do. Because it's not for the majority, but a
> very small minority. If it bothers you that much, then send me to
> /dev/null. ;->
>
>>people would probably pay more attention to what you say,
>
>
> Honest, you can go ahead and assume _no_one_ pays attention to me. I
> don't get off "feeling I'm important" or anything. I merely offer my
> _opinion_ as appropriate. Feel free to assume _nothing_ I say is of
> _any_ value. ;->
Who said anything about "no one" paying attention to you? Not I,
surely. I said only that "people" (meaning some, not all, people) would
probably pay you more attention if (et cetera). This was in response to
your own complaints that we didn't pay attention to your much-vaunted
first person experience.
Insinuating that I've said nothing you say is of value is a cheap
tactic, and I suspect nobody on this list is so stupid as to fall for it.
>
>>and you wouldn't be pulling this "woe is me" crap whenever
>>someone is discussing something you've already mentioned as though you
>>hadn't said anything because they would have noticed when you said
>>something that pertained to the discussion at hand.
>
>
> I don't act so "innocent" as you say. I don't claim I'm "innocent"
> either.
Why are you claiming I said you act "innocent"? I don't remember doing
that. Here you go again, claiming someone is saying mean things about
you that were never, in truth, said.
>
> I interjected a _very_specific_ post on what the requirement were of a
> GUI like XFCE. I mentioned Alan Cox because it was directly in a thread
> I had with him on a Fedora list.
>
> Someone _else_ then interjected an installer requirement on Fedora,
> which _is_ listed in the Release Notes**. And then the thread went from
> there. I tried to offer what I had _personally_ done with the installer
> on a system with as little as 24MB.
>
> You then stated your _assumption_ again, _quoting_ me. Again, that's
> part of the problem right there! I mention something 2nd hand about
> Alan Cox and his 48MB RAM system. You're already theorizing 3rd hand --
> even though I just stated, from _first_hand_ (which you quoted directly)
> that installing Fedora in sub-32MB is _very_possible_.
Wheee. So, now, I'm not allowed to question information that isn't
evident? Is that it?
Is this about ME now? Do you just object to me, in particular, not
worshipping the words like pearls that drop from your mouth? Would you
be this disagreeable if someone else had expressed curiosity about how
Alan Cox achieved his low-RAM installation?
>
> And then someone did a 3rd hand comment upon yours! It's almost funny
> to see this! I'm sitting here with a _first_hand_ explanation of how
> Alan Cox can install Fedora in 48MB of RAM, because I've done it in as
> little as 24MB, and people are still giving 2nd or 3rd hand commentary!
That's second hand. You said so yourself. Even if you can't count, you
should be able to keep your story straight. It's a first-hand reference
to what you've done, and a SECOND-HAND reference to what Alan Cox has done.
Besides, as I've mentioned already, to me you ARE second hand, and Alan
Cox IS third hand. My second hand references are worth roughly as much
to me as your first hand references. Get over yourself: some of us see
the world through our own eyes, rather than through yours.
>
>
>>Get over your ego and just admit that you need to stop being a
>>sanctimonious victim all the time.
>
>
> I'm not a victim. But I do _dislike_ the fact that I see lots of posts
> from people who don't use something, and go off assuming things.
>
> In fact, you have now gone to great lengths to comment on my "verbage"
> and other things about "staying on-topic." At what point do you stop
> looking at me and look at _yourself_ for once?
Even when I'm off-topic in a given thread, at least my off-topic
statements follow logically and directly from something someone else has
said, or at worst bears a clear label of being off topic (or words to
that effect).
>
> **NOTE: Red Hat is one of those companies that overstates the minimums
> and what they won't do. Because it's much easier to actually offer
> more, then state more and not be able to deliver. It goes to the heart
> of all Red Hat releases, "Underpromise, overdeliver" -- right down to
> Fedora's minimum requirements. Because if they stated 32MB was the
> minimum and it didn't install, you can be sure someone would complain.
> Even the independent Rule Project has noted this regularly (including
> making a "Miniconda" installer that removes some of the artificial
> notices).
>
I actually caught this the last couple times you said it. I haven't
commented on it because your objection to the rest of us discussing the
matter has apparently effectively killed the original thread topic. If
you'd just mentioned that without speechifying about how we're all being
so awful by having other sources aside from you from which we draw, I
probably would have said something to the effect of "Ah, that makes
sense. That would explain how those numbers are so absurd."
Instead, you decided you'd use this information as a bludgeon so that
you could pick a fight with me. Good job: it worked.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:15:20 EDT