Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

From: Florian Holz
Date: Wed Jul 24 2013 - 06:50:58 EST


just a short comment.

I think, this snippet shows the key point in this argument:

At 15.07.2013 21:53 CEST +02:00 Sarah Sharp wrote:
> Good lord. So anyone that is one of your "top maintainers" could be
> exposed to your verbal abuse just because they "should have known
> better"?
> You know what the definition of an abuser is? Someone that seeks out
> victims that they know will "just take it" and keep the abuse "between
> the two of them". They pick victims that won't fight back or report the
> abuse.
Sarah introduced the term "abuse" like in the first paragraph into the
discussion while complaining about the tone in some statements. It's her
claim, that all non-"polite" statements are an "abuse".

In the second paragraph, then she argues that "abuse" should be
prevented, using some definition of "abuse".

The claim that the unwanted kind of statements are really a kind of
abuse is still unfounded. She could have proven it -- eg by using
its/her/a definition -- but she only used this definition as foundation
to dislike the non-"polite" statements.

Imho this is just circular reasoning [1]
> (I) dislike -> (I regard as) impolite -> kind of abuse -> to be disliked (by all)
and so has no substance up to now. Maybe, logical package management
would have recognized this unmet dependency ;)

I dont' question the implication "abuse -> to be disliked".


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at