GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:47 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440)
In reply to: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode by ovitters
Parent article: GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

As I said, since you replied with exactly those words to someone doing exactly what you did, it's up to you to understand what has happened. I can only suggest that something beginning with hypo- is going on here (hint: it's not about hypothermia! hmmm, does that qualify as "stupid sarcasm" too? ;)

Rehdon

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 14:54 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (7 responses)

To summarize:
- you think something is an personal insult, I say that it is not
- you didn't respond to what I've said
- you did suggest my English is not good
- you did suggest my reading comprehension is not good
- you are suggesting some goose chase because you do have some argument

In my view, you're mostly getting personal while ignoring any argument.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 15:06 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link] (6 responses)

I think you have reading comprehension problems: there, go read these two comments and see if you get any enlightenment:

http://lwn.net/Articles/524448/
http://lwn.net/Articles/524580/

Hope you also make some progress on the hypo- quiz thingie.

And finally, I'm not "suggesting" your English is not good:

"What you quoted is and was not a personal insult." sounds like bad English to me.

"I know it are my words" is definitely bad English. Period.

Rehdon

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 21:04 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (5 responses)

In summary: No arguments, let's get personal with 'bkor'!

Complaining about someones English and all the other behaviour you've displayed here is pathetic while trying to complain about my behaviour. I've asked for details, instead you show this kind of behaviour.

Get lost, really.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 21:07 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

Oh, alternatively: go to FOSDEM (GNOME stand). As alternative suggestion, suggest talking to me in person because at the moment I get the strong impression your current behaviour would not be the same.

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 22:17 UTC (Thu) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link] (3 responses)

What argument are you talking about? It should've been clear from the start that I wasn't arguing about the "classic" mode in Gnome 3 (too little too late, if you ask me), the only sensible thing you wrote is that my comment was personally directed to you: yes, I hoped you might notice how hypocritical of you was telling one guy "enough stupid sarcasm" after you took the high ground telling another one "please don't insult anyone" for exactly the same kind of remark (which didn't include the word "stupid", btw).

But of course that didn't happen: God forbid that you might admit being wrong! I guess you might be the kind of person who says "look where you're going!" when you bump into someone. No, I won't come pay a visit to you at FOSDEM: my attitude might be different indeed, but it's yours that it's at fault here.

I'm afraid the current problem with GNOME development it's not technical, and it's not political either: it's just that the wrong people are doing it. You're back at the starting point of the open source movement: you're scratching your personal itches, so to speak, only you're disguising that using words like "vision", "brand", and so on. The technical regressions in GNOME 3 are just a symptom of the psychological regression and detachment from the GNOME community by the current developers.

I almost felt sorry for you guys when reading the heavy trolling in this thread, but not anymore, you reap what you sow after all. I will be back to GNOME when you either grow up (in all senses), or a new generation of developers will take your place.

So long and thanks for GNOME 2.x (if you had any part in it).

Rehdon

GNOME Shell to support a "classic" mode

Posted Nov 22, 2012 22:32 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (2 responses)

First comment I noticed is this one:
https://lwn.net/Articles/526359/

Where you complain that I personally insulted someone. It was not a personal insult, nor meant as one.

I don't care at all about "brand" and all the other stuff you're adding to this. Seems you're getting very emotional and personal for no good reason.

So again:
"No need for stupid sarcasm, thanks."

Was NOT intended as a personal insult. It also is NOT a personal insult. If you read it as such, I did NOT mean it that way.

In any case, you continuous behaviour (condescending, getting personal, and psyco analysis of me as well as other GNOME developers): Rich to complain about me taking the high ground.

Noticed you never replied the times I stated I did NOT an personal insult. Also, you seem to have ignored my request to go to FOSDEM.

Trying to be constructive here and understand, but even if I was wrong somewhere, you're not making things any clearer for me with this kind of conversation style.

This is going nowhere, so this is the last I'm going to say.

perhaps my opportunity to be flamed ...but

Posted Nov 25, 2012 9:12 UTC (Sun) by ds2horner (subscriber, #13438) [Link] (1 responses)

When I first read "No need for stupid sarcasm, thanks.", I considered it a personal attack, a criticism of the individual making the comment and not a constructive criticism of the comment.
I suspect you do not have a good appreciation for what the word sarcasm means nor the implicit derision the word conveys.
A normal denotative meaning of sarcasm (according to New Lexicon Websters Dictionary 1990 edition) is "n. a cruel humorous statement or remark made with the intent of injuring the self-respect of the person to who it is addressed ...".
So, by labeling the comment as sarcasm (not matter the intent of the "stupid" qualifier) you made a value judgment of the speakers intent and character; and that being a negative one. Thus it would usually be seen as a personal attack on the speaker.
However, in my opinion, even the use of "stupid" in such discussions is sufficient to be offensive, especially as its secondary mean (from the same reference dictionary is "adj. ... resulting from lack of intelligence". And you appeared to understand this as you gave an excuse for your use of the adjective.

perhaps my opportunity to be flamed ...but

Posted Nov 26, 2012 10:11 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

OK, I did not find bkor's response offensive. I understand that dealing with a community that is critic with something you care about can be tiresome and at times frustrating. That's OK, and I would like to encourage bkor to continue defending what he/she believes in.