Stupid end-user tricks: darcs for /etc and /boot

Alexander Skwar 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:
> 
> <quote>
> 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.
> </quote>

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
statement.

> 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. 

Done.

> 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
as well?

> 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
flawed.

>> 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". 

Yes.

>> 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
is flawed.

>> No, it's not irrelevant. It shows, that he doesn't have the facts
>> correct.
> 
> 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 
> erred.

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.

Where?

>> 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!

Alexander Skwar
-- 
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 mailing list