| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Two articles from Dag WieersTwo articles from Dag WieersPosted Dec 17, 2008 21:24 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Two articles from Dag Wieers by louie Parent article: Two articles from Dag Wieers
TBH I barely bother reading jspaleta's stuff anymore. If his posts contain
the strings 'Ubuntu', 'Canonical' or 'Shuttleworth' it is probably not worth reading. Flooding does that.
(Log in to post comments)
ad hominem Posted Dec 18, 2008 15:55 UTC (Thu) by mmcgrath (guest, #44906) [Link]
> TBH I barely bother reading jspaleta's stuff anymore. If his posts contain the strings 'Ubuntu', 'Canonical' or 'Shuttleworth' it is probably not worth reading. Flooding does that.
Trying to discredit an individual does not mean that what he is saying is incorrect nor does it mean he should not ask questions.
ad hominem: yeah right Posted Dec 18, 2008 17:05 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Just from how these posts look people should be able to deduce that not all of the 200 question marks point to serious, relevant, and informed questions.The reasonable request was, and still is, to please ask these "questions" somewhere else. Sometimes I get the feeling that I have ended up in a Fedora evangelists forum, and I did not subscribe to that, as much as I like Fedora. Which is rapidly changing by sheer association. Every time someone mentions Launchpad, Ubuntu or the bloody NetworkManager we get the same predictable flood of reactions. Yeah yeah, my own included. But I have a point. ;-)
ad hominem Posted Dec 18, 2008 22:23 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's an expression of exasperation, not an ad hominem attack. I'm not
saying 'Jef is attacking Canonical therefore he is a bad person and eats baby seals', I'm saying 'please do it somewhere else'.
|
|
||||||||||||