Stupid end-user tricks: darcs for /etc and /boot
listen at alexander.skwar.name
Thu Jun 22 06:14:08 UTC 2006
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>> You are debating a point which is no consequence to the OP's argument.
>>> He says that etc-update prompts the user about important changes. You
>>> say that it also prompts the user about unimportant changes. So what?
>> "So what"? He said, that only "important" changes are shown.
> No, he didn't say that.
No? Let's see...
> This is what he said:
> I know how etc-update works (I used Gentoo for a year). Upon emerging
> *some* packages it prompts the user to view changes to important files
> (fstab being one). If the user chooses the worng config file his system
> is hosed until he modifies the offending file.
See? He says that changes to *important* files are shown. This implies,
that changes to unimportant files aren't shown - and this is a false
> He did not say "only".
No, but by saying "*some* packages it prompts the user to view changes to important files"
he implies, that only changes to important files are shown. Why else
would he mention "important"?
>>> The poster's position is still correct,
>> No, it's not. It never was.
> Saying "no it's not" doesn't make it so.
That's true. But since you're not open to arguments, there's basically
no sense in using arguments.
> To invalidate an argument you
> must show that either the premise or the logical step is incorrect.
> Saying that etc-update also shows unimportant changes does neither.
You're wrong and you know that.
He said, that only *some* packages cause etc-update to show differences.
That's wrong. He said, that only "important files" are shown. That's
wrong again. Two mistakes in one sentence.
>>> Telling us that etc-update prompts about unimportant changes
>> You're really annoying...
> I'm sure you are annoyed, but that might well be because you don't
> actually have an argument.
It might, but it isn't. It rather is, because you refuse to accept
the argument and keep on defending the "wrong-ness" of what the OP
wrote. And you're further annoying, as you're trying to put words
in my mouth. That's not at all fine. Do you do that in real life
> Saying that etc-update shows all changes and
> not just the important ones is not relevant because the OP never claimed
> that etc-update only showed important changes
You know, repeating mistakes doesn't help you at all...
The opposite of what you say is true - or to use your words: You're lying.
> and he never used that as
> a premise for his position.
But by, as you put it, "nit picking" it is shown, that his premise is
>> I actually did not say, that "unimportant" changes are shown as
>> well. Just read what I've wrote.
> You said "it doesn't show only important changes, it shows all changes".
>> All changes are shown.
> That's fantastic, but this fact does not alter the OP's premise. Since
> "important files" are a subset of "all changes", his premise holds.
He excludes "all changes" by specifically pointing to "important
files" and thus you're statement is wrong and thus his premise
>> No, it's not irrelevant. It shows, that he doesn't have the facts
> I think it shows that he knows how to recognize relevant facts in an
> argument and you don't.
You're plain wrong. And you're very rude.
Fact is, that OP totally erred in what he wrote. Fact is, that you
don't accept that (why not?).
>>> I have not lied about your position,
>> Yes, you did.
> I have not.
So, you're lying and you're not even "brave" enough to stand to this
fact? *LOL* You're "funny"...
> I may have erred, which is different. I don't think I have
Of course not - you never err, do you?
Just to make that clear: By saying "of course not", I'm *NOT* agreeing
to what you wrote. Just to get that right, before you snip away relevant
information and use this to make up an argument and use it against me.
> I just quoted you saying essentially the same thing I claimed
> that you said.
No, you didn't. You've cut away an important aspect of what I wrote
and thus made up a new statement.
>>> I would be grateful if you did not lie about mine.
>> I don't.
> You admitted that you did in this email.
>> So, what? I never said that knives aren't dangerous.
> You did, even in this very email.
I didn't. Show where I did so or offer an appology for you lies!
A star captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even
his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.
-- Kirk, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown
More information about the ubuntu-users