Re: Emacs: Problems of the Scratch Buffer

[Chiron <chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com>]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:52:18 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Chiron <chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> Date: Sat,
<snip>
>> > 
>> The decision of the maintainers not to implement certain changes. 
>> Kindly refer to earlier posts in this thread for more information.
> 
> I asked on what behavior did _you_ decide that the maintainers behave as
> you say they do.
> 
And I told you where to find it.

>> >> They aren't making the changes that people seem to want - at least
>> >> not the ones that might gather lots of users.
>> > 
>> > Which changes?  Facts, please!
>> > 
>> Refer to earlier posts in this thread.
> 
> There's nothing there to suggest that.  What are _your_ facts, please?
> 
Yes, there is.  Or else, there isn't.  You'll have to go find it, if you 
want it.  I'm just about done with this thread.

I'm obviously not making myself clear, and too many people are 
misunderstanding me for it to be them.  Obviously I'm just not getting 
through, and it's something I'm doing wrong.

>> > Without the facts to back this up, I would not consider this
>> > "conclusion" valid.
>> 
>> It's not a "conclusion."  It's an opinion.  My opinion is based on what
>> I see, which is a very limited subset of what occurs.  There is no
>> particular reason for you to accept this opinion.
> 
> If you tell what are your opinions based on, we could try figuring out
> whether those opinions are justified or just misunderstandings.  But as
> long as you evade any particulars, there's no sense in continuing this
> discussion, and there indeed is no reason at all for me to accept your
> opinion or even to consider it.
> 
Well, since several people are not understanding me, there is a very good 
chance that it's misunderstandings - on my part.  I'd love to blame it on 
all of you, and theoretically it could be so; but the numbers say the 
problem is with me.

>> I think you have mistaken my comments for those of someone else.
> 
> I did not.
> 
Did too (just kidding).

>> It may be helpful to review the thread to see what I was originally
>> responding to.
> 
> I already did that.
> 
OK.  Then I have nothing more to add; I am obviously unfit for further 
discussion.

>> In case I have been unclear, I am not criticizing the current
>> maintainers of emacs.  I am supporting their right to make or not make
>> changes in emacs, as they see fit.
> 
> You are ascribing them motives and behavior that (1) don't exist, and
> (2) are derogatory to their role and the way they perform their duties. 
> If that's not "criticizing", then I don't know what would be.
> 
No, actually I'm not, which is why I say people are not understanding 
me.  I was arguing for the right of maintainers (anyone, actually) to 
make or not make changes.  But somehow this degenerated into a whole set 
of other issues that I never cared to discuss, claims that I never 
intended to make, and so on.  Obviously, I am not getting through.

>> I feel that for some reason people are not understanding what I am
>> saying.
> 
> They do.

No, they don't.  If they did, they wouldn't say the things they are 
saying.  Now, I am *NOT* claiming that anyone is being obtuse, or that 
anyone *should* understand me.  I *am* saying that I am apparently having 
some difficulty with communicating.  I am not stupid, and I am also 
normally good at communicating, but right now, for some reason, I am 
simply not getting through.  I must be doing something wrong.

Rather than continue to frustrate myself, I will withdraw from this 
conversation.

In case I'm still not clear:  I am blaming myself for my lack of clarity.

-- 
Catproof is an oxymoron, childproof nearly so.