From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Emacs Survey: Toolbars Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 17:11:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <87o8iv3ac3.fsf@gnus.org> <838s9zavcx.fsf@gnu.org> <87im92nmd6.fsf@gnus.org> <83y2hx91u1.fsf@gnu.org> <87czz9enc6.fsf@gmail.com> <83sg858yjr.fsf@gnu.org> <878s9wetdb.fsf@gmail.com> <81fd6785-f9b5-4926-9363-1d63f8672599@default> <5e031a6e-f94e-495e-a8cf-9e9db1544dbe@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 21 02:13:13 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kr9l9-00076K-Uf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 02:13:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45628 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kr9l8-0001ZH-JU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 20:13:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kr9k6-00018Y-Cb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 20:12:06 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:60426) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kr9k3-0003FQ-RX; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 20:12:05 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BL1BdKX130034; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 01:11:59 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=fvkBlZX07imoDSvzkzsHW+75UGUzYOGoVHuUlXGASdU=; b=ugH+nmw6EkJ5yyRBMfcnDV/sWYHQZ8kOi9kvcJWXo2QmlrpUg6YgnkeqGZ6q9z1EutjW 2LWTAGfmFFhHGAZV/XYYRQrdJ2V1qV3SNAa4wHVghZ0oUhAKsHMTZZsEnO7XQhWiXI0B 4HV7jk1UKBC4qmof+m0l73yOw2uQP17MWuZfGz5s2cjFJIO288zIW/W22Pgj1Fhng2fH HoxOQ4mxvRASi2WBat9Jc9/DoFdsu75r8I1ywothlgvAOkoYsj8yx1xNFz7fcQH0Y7gD dgXuUMVzrfqP57I8PqFd1HQtPsvmAoiJiRjlZsiiGFj/DYqzuVLUIYg4scUDUvT7UT26 /A== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35h8xqu7a4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 01:11:59 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BL16R40156673; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 01:11:59 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35hueux06k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 01:11:59 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0018.oracle.com (abhmp0018.oracle.com [141.146.116.24]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 0BL1Bw89006127; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 01:11:58 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5095.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9841 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012210006 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9841 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012210006 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.86; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2130.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:261365 Archived-At: > I read these words >=20 > > Nothing, except that people have been conditioned to expect that > > changes in options get saved automatically, > I assume you mean _some_ people. >=20 > and saw that things were getting snarky. "I assume you mean" is a > snarky way of disagreeing if it isn't reporting a typing error. No, it's not. It's not inherently any such thing. It, and pretty much anything, _can_ be used to be snarky. And pretty much anything can be interpreted to be snarky, if that's what one looks for or tends to hear. You may have "seen" things getting snarky, but things were not snarky or getting snarky. The discussion was only technical, not personal, until your intervention. Would you have preferred that I write "I guess" instead of "I assume"? Or "Yes, some people have been so conditioned, and ..."? Or "Did you mean to write '_some_ people'"? If so, please consider hearing some such phraseology. My guess is that you may have been looking for trouble, and so found it. You may not think so. And I may be wrong, of course - just a guess. But maybe think about it. I think/hope that if you reread all that was written you'll see that nothing snarky was intended, and there was no dispute - not even a technical disagreement, AFAIK. Qualifying the statement to only some people in that context was no different from qualifying a statement about integers to only natnums. The goal was clarification. My point was that Emacs can cater to more than one expected or preferred alternative behavior. Different strokes for different folks. Emacs shines at that. > So I said, >=20 > Would each you please take a deep breath, and respond > more kindly from now on? >=20 > I guess you took that as an attack, rather than as an exhortation, > because you responded by throwing that perceived attack back at me: An attack was perceived by you (3rd? 4th?). It wasn't an attack. It was suggesting the same thing you suggested, as a reply to what I sensed was an overreaction to, and misinterpretation of, the conversation and intentions, which were entirely cooperative. You advised us to take a deep breath, to step back from a perceived dispute or snarkiness. I asked that you take a deep breath, to step back from an overreaction. > Would you please take a deep breath? >=20 > I did as you suggested, and on second reading I agree > that Robert Pluim's words were not unkind. They seemed > that way when I first read them. Sorry, Robert. I was hoping that a deep breath and rereading would help you see there was no fight to break up, and no malevolence. Are you now hinting that only my words were unkind? I might say I'm guessing that, but I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. And I'm glad you've absolved Robert, at least. > You continued with >=20 > I don't think there was anything unkind in > either what Robert said or in my reply to him. > Did you actually read what each of us said? >=20 > Of course. But only the parts that I cited. >=20 > I didn't read the whole messages, or any of the whole messages in that > subthread, because I'm not participating in discussing that particular > question. We were interested in the question, even if you were not. It kind of feels like you weighed in as a referee of sorts in what you thought was a personal dispute. A referee really owes it to all to follow the action before judging. Not doing so isn't fair. > If I wanted to participate, I'd have to read the > points made about it. I decided it was easier > just to say nothing about it. That was what I guessed might have been the case. It can be easy (for anyone) to misinterpret something out of context. And then reacting to that can easily be unfair. Context is important. > > The point of my emphasis on "some" was elaborated > > in the rest of what I said, >=20 > I'm sure it was. But I'm talking about the attack (against Robert) > that I perceived in the first line. Not about the substantive point > it was the start of. I hope I've made it clear now, and that by rereading you'll understand there was no attack anywhere. Along with deep breaths, please allow me to suggest / prescribe (all) giving each other the _benefit of the doubt_. That can often go a long way toward avoiding negative misunderstanding. ___ Half of the people can be part right all of the time, Some of the people can be all right part of the time. But all the people can't be all right all the time I think Abraham Lincoln said that. "I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours," I said that. - R. Zimmerman