Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

[john palmieri <john j5 palmieri gmail com>]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org> wrote:

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:


> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>
> wrote:

> > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely
> > are useful and insightful.
>
> > They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more
> > pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be.


> Thanks for relegating the opposing view to "certain people".  It is
> certainly intelectually honest of you to put them in all in the same
> bucket and then crap in it.

These people aren't who I refer to as "certain people".

In the next section I clarify that "certain people" means the people who
are very disruptive. Cutting it away doesn't change that I wrote exactly
that.

Let me be helpful and put it back for you:

> > Given that some of those people have been very disruptive, it for me
> > absolutely was needed to confront them with numerical reality.

 
I cut it for brevity, and guess what, your rationalization is off anyway.  The above statement states that a subset of "certain people" are disruptive.  It doesn't say certain people == the disruptive people. Even if you rephrased it as:

       They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more
       pragmatic than DISRUPTIVE PEOPLE in the audience would like us to be.

You are still implying that those who are in opposition are the disruptive people.  It is a blanket, emotional statement.  You could have simply left it with open source developers are far more pragmatic than some give credit for.

Because you are pretty disrespectful in how you deal with debate, this is the last time I am replying to you on this thread.

--
John (J5) Palmieri