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"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

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.