Sharp: Closing a door [LWN.net]

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 13, 2015 14:02 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
In reply to: Sharp: Closing a door by ksandstr
Parent article: Sharp: Closing a door

Please note that I did not psychoanalyze anyone. I merely said: The following behavior is what I'd expect from a psychopath: The pursuit of selfish goals above all else including other people's feelings.

to post comments

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 13, 2015 14:39 UTC (Tue) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, deny an accusation that wasn't made, and that would be at most peripheral to the argument. Because that sure changes everything.

Good day.

Second request

Posted Oct 13, 2015 14:44 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (2 responses)

Please...let's bring this to an end. The useful part of the discussion is past, and I'd just as soon do without any more of this kind of stuff.

Second request

Posted Oct 18, 2015 12:01 UTC (Sun) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (1 responses)

Yo. Yo!

Which part of "good day", to you, doesn't indicate that the branch of discussion is at an end? That I'm dropping the mic, tapping out, refusing to keep wrestling the pig?

More pertinently, where were you when the kindergarten-tier arguments of "that's what a sociopath would say" were ringing out, seemingly for as long as it need go? Does this just-about-readiness to close the discussion only come out when it moves out of the designated circlejerk? When the new political class gets told? When an Incontrovertible Holy Minority of Antioch requests assistance over private channels? But I repeat myself.

Articles concerning touchie-feelie topics always have a great big shitstorm in the comment section, with seemingly limitless catty abuse hurled at those who would refuse an emotional argument, or worse still, argue from evidence and reason to any conclusion besides the pre-chewed one we're expected to swallow. This is true also of articles concerning systemd; we've seen your comment section's finest politruks drive away technologists just for being "on the wrong side". What's your plan concerning this phenomenon, beyond an instinctive supplication to the best passive-aggressives that good-boy points can hire?

Is it truly the beardies alone who're at fault, here? It's certainly so if one asks the opponent: they do have naught but hatred for wrongthink, after all. "Listen And Believe", as they say: there never was any "Unix Philosophy", basic human rights as recognized by the UN are subordinate to the self-stated need of Sacred Minorities and their Not At All Chauvinist Spokespersons, and we've always been at war with Toxic Rape Apologists. Or what?

Though I could be wrong here, certainly. You could be addressing the rest of the thread by posting at one of its tails, and not my comment in particular. If that's the case then do forgive me for reading your comment as it was posted; I had no idea.

Second request

Posted Oct 18, 2015 13:39 UTC (Sun) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Which part? Maybe the part where you have to get the last word in no matter what?

Look, my desire was to close down the conversation as a whole, I said as much; I was not speaking to any single specific person.

That said, I am now speaking to you. This comment was aggressive, the one attacking Matthew Garrett rather more so. You have moved quite firmly into the realm of personal attacks, and you need to stop now.