[OT] Quick reply of a few items that I couldn't leave unanswered
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 03:32:43PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:32:42PM -0700, Martin Swift wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:52:51PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > > I was sceptical of the move from the beginning and have to admit that,
> > > > though there are some good ideas out there, I don't think they
> > > > outweigh the frustration of broken setups that plenty of (mostly
> > > > non-technically oriented) people will face.
> > >
> > > I don't think this argument holds any water.
> >
> > The part you quoted does not contain even a part of an argument.
>
> Yes it does. The argument you are making is that any benefits of any
> good ideas are outweighed by the frustration of broken setups...
No, Derek. This my conclusion to the argument. It was already stated
by others so I didn't bother repeating it. You can criticise the
premise or the deduction, you *cannot* criticise the conclusion.
> Specifically, this is the PREMISE of your argument,
No; the CONCLUSION.
> > It is a summary of my viewpoint which is based on arguments which
> > have already been presented.
>
> You are using too narrow a definition of "argument." It has many
> meanings, including:
>
> 3.
> a. A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a
> literary work.
> b. A topic; a subject: “You and love are still my argument”
> (Shakespeare).
>
> [American Heritage Dictionary]
Indeed the word "argument" does have many meanings, each of which is
applicable to a *specific* context. What that means is that you can't
just pick whichever one you like! We were -- well some of us --
engaged in a debate -- not a literary discussion.
Go look it up again and check the definition that follows the
italicised word "Logic".
> But this debate is not about the semantics of argumentation...
It wasn't originally, but it seems one might be needed.
> > > As I've already said, I believe if the transition is handled properly,
> > > the impact to users is very nearly zero.
> >
> > But even if the impact is small, it isn't worth even this discussion
> > if there isn't sufficent reward.
>
> You are making subjective judgements. It may not be worth it TO YOU,
> but there is an objective reward to Mutt which is greater than your
> subjective reward.
Exactly, Derek, which is what I said right from the start. Please,
don't just read posts that you reply to; try also to *understand* what
is written.
I actually went further and said that this was basically a subjective
matter and the way the debate was going, continuing the argument could
potentially prove counterproductive. I therefore suggested that we try
to see if there was a compromise that could make everyone happy.
Is it just me or did this take a turn for the surreal?
> You just don't happen to care about it.
>From my first email on the topic:
First off, changing the variable names would be a great idea as the
proposed changes do make a lot of sense
Derek, really. I ...
... I have no words.
Martin
PS. A healthy read:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate>
<http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=argument>
<http://www.bartleby.com/61/94/A0419400.html>
--
\u270C