summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorTom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>2015-10-05 21:35:05 +0100
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-10-05 20:38:06 +0000
commit8de8030f6b7950601372f8139f1f6e4496428d16 (patch)
tree279f9f3bc6e2d5dc2ebef64780e3261fcc286ec3
parenta828cc7f2bbc9eb5ac93acb396055e5d1fe8991c (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-8de8030f6b7950601372f8139f1f6e4496428d16.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-8de8030f6b7950601372f8139f1f6e4496428d16.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
-rw-r--r--32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592106
1 files changed, 106 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592 b/32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..49ad7e4b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F4F5FFB
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:38:06 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E638B8E
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:38:05 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
+X-Spam-Score: -2.9
+X-Spam-Level:
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
+ autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
+Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
+ by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1356223A
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:38:03 +0200 (CEST)
+From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
+To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:35:05 +0100
+Message-ID: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
+In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp>
+ <CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com>
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
+ smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
+ technical debate
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:38:06 -0000
+
+On Monday 5. October 2015 19.41.30 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
+> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
+>
+> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+> > It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It
+> > also makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without
+> > basis. For the second time in this thread.
+> > I would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.
+>
+> Such a shame you appear to reserve that wisdom for those you disagree
+> with, biting your tongue when others emit all forms of ad hominem--
+
+You are special only in your eloquent use of the language. Consider yourself
+lucky :)
+
+> In this case, I think, however your correction is also misplaced at
+> least on this message; though I would otherwise welcome it.
+
+I would not expect anything less.
+
+> I'm not complaining about the man;
+> but pointing out the behavior of stating an
+> opinion no one has held as theirs and attacking it is not a productive
+> way to hold a discussion. It's an argument or a behavior, not a
+> person, and beyond calling it bad I attempted to explaining (perhaps
+> poorly) why its bad.
+
+Thanks for explaining your thinking.
+
+Fortunately I can say that while we certainly value your opinion, when peoples
+opinions are hard to read, as you indicated they can be, we should look at
+their actions. The group has followed the consensus rule quite rigorously,
+which I applaud.
+But next to that people like Black and Laan have given strong verbal
+indications confirming the practice you personally keep explaining is not
+real.
+
+
+When I was a little boy of maybe 12 years, I remember reading a short story,
+that stuck with me. It was about a man that had vowed to never lie. He was
+invited to a dinner party and asked to assist with another man's accusation of
+a crime he claimed to not have committed.
+The end result was that the accused man was indeed guilty, but he minced his
+words so well that every sentence uttered was true. To the layman he seemed
+truthful and pleasant. Certainly innocent.
+But to the man that never lied, his stories quickly fell apart as he himself
+had had years of practice with the same. And the guilty man was jailed.
+
+
+I really enjoy reading your emails and github posts too, they have an
+eloquence and a brashness.
+
+> If there is continued
+> misunderstanding, I do not doubt its my fault; but it's probably not a
+> good use of hundreds/thousands of people's time for you to help me
+> interactively improve my explanation on list.
+
+Quite.
+