From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: AW: Fwd: CEDET sync Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:45:40 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <8763593nbv.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <86bpf7q3fc.wl%lluis@ginnungagap.pc.ac.upc.edu> <87wrxvyijr.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4B8C42E2.3080308@siege-engine.com> <7697A57B1AD9104F993CDF6A5B69430C09227D1F24@CORPMAIL08.corp.capgemini.com> <878wabxg0x.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87mxyrhxq8.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87635eycga.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87hboyhfnt.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87zl2qwsgk.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fx4hw8sg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4tqul7w.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1267861567 15936 80.91.229.12 (6 Mar 2010 07:46:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:46:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 06 08:46:04 2010 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnoi3-0000Dx-KZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:46:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53152 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nnoi3-0004k8-2P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:46:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nnohy-0004k3-EZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:45:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58030 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nnohx-0004jv-Ij for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:45:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnohu-0003BS-C6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:45:57 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:58041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnoht-0003BI-Vr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:45:54 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnohq-00007t-WD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:45:51 +0100 Original-Received: from p5b2c1edf.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.30.223]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:45:50 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c1edf.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:45:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ connect(): Connection refused Original-Lines: 41 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c1edf.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BK4EC8BJqMAdO21MXH5Xc4Wpn/w= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:121675 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Richard Stallman writes: > > > We do not "ostracize" or reject people for their beliefs if they > > wish to contribute and will follow our rules for doing so. > > But we may ostracize people for persistent hostility and trying > > to put us unjustly in the wrong. > > I've already been told to stop posting to this thread, and therefore > cannot reply. A mailing list is not a good place to discuss matters for which the primary correspondent would be Richard. In particular regarding issues you feel agitated about. Richard has intermittent access and time, and so it is likely that there results a more or less heated back and forth before he even has time to address an issue. By that time, the atmosphere might already have moved way beyond the state where addressing the initial posting makes much sense. And even if his mail queue is worked off strictly sequentially, it is likely that initial calm-headed answers are wasted since they can't keep up with an escalation that has already happened. And wasting time and effort on a route already blocked is not likely to improve anyone's mood. And purely electronic interaction has a much higher chance of escalation anyway since face-to-face interaction makes you realize interactively at what point of time a point has registered, and when not. Which makes it much easier to figure when it is appropriate give the other time and room to ponder and respond. So even in private mail, it might at times be a good rule to stop and think: would I feel this issue would also warrant picking up the phone and calling the person about it? If so, maybe it is not the worst idea to actually do so. Or at least try to think it through (which by far is not the same). It might readjust one's sensors about what one feels comfortable about writing or saying. -- David Kastrup