Thank you for making it meaningless...
gmakmail at gmail.com
Fri Mar 10 10:00:35 PST 2006
Richard Downing wrote:
> What a rude person you are George. I think your attitude is intolerable
> and that you should be unceremoniously booted off the project. As a
> matter of principle I am now boycotting the ALFS project and all it's
> products until the 'management' come to their senses.
TO: Richard Downing
I want for this to work since I am using it. Boycotting a project because you lack insight of other people's P.O.V. should not be a stereotypical pattern of
orthodox or meta - orthodox logic. It simply denotes preconception and in the worst case, innate non-self P.O.V. racism. When commenting a post, there are
various ways of stating your "opinion" if you wish to undermine that particular post, for example:
1. Saying implicitly that the commented post is useless by presenting your own work and gradually trying to push your work forward while politely abusing non
2. Using _obscure_ technical language for the sake of starting a pissing contest without inherent meaning to it at all (scare offs? how biased...). Honestly I
have not been impressed by something like this since I was born ( note the wording here ). If something can be recreated, it is comprehensible, has no mysteries.
3. Having the preconception of being God - like. Others by default do not follow rules, others by default are "lesser" children.
4. Premature constructive criticism. Stating the obvious != providing a solution, especially if within the original post there is an explicit referral to the
Please use some of the above to refer to people and not projects. Some in this list are particularly apt to taking some of the above patterns as tools.
While preparing a a viable solution prototype, there must be some "territoriality" preserved. If there were like 20 different "linux" kernel code bases, would
the project ever lift off? This is why authors of a healthy project usually present FIRST a solution prototype, upon which feedback, regression testing, further
programming assistance ecc are required to reach a production ready phase.
(HELP) :Produce a new feature, or point towards it, or prove weaknesses in a presented model.
!(HELP):Having more than one way to decrease effectiveness.
What Mr. Dubbs did from his first post was to use ironic comments, and that has been a (mis?)use of premature constructive criticism. He did state that he would
not be bothering himself again. I thanked him for that (semantically unequivocal statement, bears no emotional tone). This ends it. You said you think that this
is rude. The use of the verb "think" here means that you probably lack objective data of the whole situation and refer to the statistically prevalent inference
of your thought patterns, yet without having actually examined any members of this problem space.
I never asked to become a member of any *LFS project. I only try to produce a solution that is viable. Ranks, terms, and whatever else you may use to
discriminate people upon basis other than administrative roles, is purely an efficient way to state your (mis | pre)conception. If I wanted to do things on my
own, without having the patience to be put to a meaningless biased psychological profiling test when that occurs - as in this occasion, I would have simply
completed the project and posted it on a place like SourceForge. It would be a much more efficient way, for sure; provided I was such a person for this given
Richard Downing wrote:
> But the fact remains this one (gmak?) top
> posts, doesn't trim, shouts a lot, is long winded, and makes reading
> alfs-dev disagreeable. He generally behaves like he's about 12.
NOTE: Fuzzy - like methods for extracting behavioral patterns lead to non significant conclusions if inadequate data are axiomatically accepted as true.
Richard Downing wrote:
> I'm not an apologist for Bruce, but this is a case where he is the
> innocent party. And as I've said before, I will not quietly tolerate
NOTE: Does this mean that there were cases where he was not the innocent party? Or simply another unfortunate case of inadequately unequivocal wording?
Thank you for holding the absolute truth.
TO: Jeremy Huntwork
> We do have another George who hasn't caused any trouble to date
NOTE: Does this mean that *this* George *is* causing trouble?.
I take it simply as a form of phrase that does not bear any monosemantic meaning (ie it is not unequivocal), this is possibly the case because I have been in
touch with you occasionally.
Mixing monosemantic - "like" structures with ambivalent wording was what Mr. B.D. did. No offense, this is his P.O.V., or perhaps an unfortunate communication
medium based upon a mixture of applied emotional (mis?)interpretation patterns, personal bias and discrete logic structures, from either side(s?) of the chain.
I simply do not like to spend personal time working on things that at least 10 other people work separately. I have found everyone's comments (B.D.'s included)
useful, and always taken them under consideration. This is why I "reacted" in this way. If you are already doing it, it is fine by me, I will just go back and
watch the film, making use of your better solution once ready. No one is unsubstitutable, others may be necessary. Increasing project entropy leads to long
stand - stills.
Anyway, I am continuing the effort because I require to have a better tool in order to build the LFS core automatically, with optimized binaries and optional
package management. I prefer to post things in a relatively mature stage, so that I save myself from having to do this conversation all over again, for no
reason at all. Bear in mind that in any case, I _will_ support the project and suggest to others to use it in production environments. The work done by all the
members of this community is exemplary for its simplicity and effectiveness. It seemed like providing concepts / discussing it within the list was the unnatural
way to do things. I should have not used the mailing list at all. My neophobical reflexes are absent and I am completely without a sense of humor. I only
believe to logic. So I posted on the list, axiomatically accepting that as indicated in the website, this is the proper way. Thus by trial and error I find the
proper place to discuss ideas is (not?????) the mailing list. Please do correct me if I am wrong.
For me this is a final post concerning Mr. Dubbs and Mr. Downing. I enjoy the fact that the *LFS projects have them as contributors and opinion makers. Witty
sarcasm, creative offense, constructive bigotry produce data upon which it is possible to deploy statistical inference techniques. Pointless monologues are
simply to be considered as background noise when not even pertinent to specific problem spaces. For the sake of Mr. Dubbs and Mr. Downing actually contributing
to the project, it is significantly acceptable with a small margin for errors that the entire subject is the product of misunderstanding(s). I would prefer to
work with you Jeremy, George B., Manuel Es., Gerard B. and others. It would be more efficient for me to work with you in private, provided you do wish.
Please remove the content of all of my messages to this list if you "feel" it is appropriate. It is technically feasible.
More information about the alfs-discuss