[PLUG-TALK] reliance on technology (was: Redhat changes, fedora)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Thu Nov 6 01:31:25 UTC 2003


On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> * Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-11-05 14:29]:
> > Perhaps you should use a mail client that actually honors the Reply-To:
> > header as per RFC.
>
> My mail client (mutt btw) is perfectly capable. It's set up to do
> exactly what it does.

Well, it certainly wouldn't do something that it's not set up to do!

I'm just saying you should look into giving it more convenient and
appropriate behavior.

> > ...and it doesn't take much time for a reasonably intelligent person.
>
> I should tell you how many times I've heard the phrase, "But that's not
> how we learned it in college!"

Of course.

> I suggest that it does matter.

In this instance, it doesn't.  You ASSUMED that I wouldn't agree with me
because I'm not as old as you are.  That's not honor, that's ignorant
prejudiced stereotyping (also known as bigotry).

> There's a reason the Native Americans held their elders in such high
> esteem. I think the fact that honoring our elders has gone out of vogue,
> at least in this country, is a bad thing.

First, honor should be given equally to all human beings.

Second, mere survival no longer denotes any kind of greater wisdom or
maturity.  Modern civilization allows even the most foolish and lazy to
become "elders".

Lastly, you're not that much older or more experienced than I am... I just
look good for my age.

> Many people have very high ideals that just aren't practical, given the
> situation we are currently in.

Ideals have nothing to do with pragmatism by definition.

> Maybe that will change, maybe it won't. I've been listening to folks try
> to change the world for nearly 40 years, and it hasn't changed that
> much. If anything, it's gotten farther away from these "ideals" that
> "they" wanted.

I personally believe pragmatism is very destructive.  You can never get
from bad to good with compromises.

> If enough folks do it, well, maybe it was a good idea.

The "goodness" of an idea has nothing to do with how many people do it.

> > > Repeated failure is one path to depression. That's not a path I choose.
> > If you understand in advance that perfection is unatainable, there is no
> > failure.
>
> Not succeeding is failing.

See, I'm a glass half-full kind of guy.

I would say that "not failing" is succeeding.

> Do, or do not. There is no try. -- Yoda.

Hate to break this to you, but Yoda is a fucking muppet.

> > Then you're willfully ignorant and a leech.
>
> We've disagreed on this before. I don't believe I have to learn all that
> is learnable. Geez, that's another movie quote.

And how does that make you not willfully ignorant and not a leech?

> How is that not a bicycle? The training wheels are temporary. I've never
> heard anyone say that bolting on training wheels truns a bike into
> something else.

Bicycles have two wheels.  It's another one of the pesky definitions.

>>> Can they take it apart and put it back together without help?
>>
>> That's not important yet.  That can be learned relatively quickly when
>> the need arises.
>
> But then they don't understand the bicycle fully.

Yes, they do.  They can't do it, but they know HOW to do it.

> SOME kids can get gyroscopic effect by four. But my contention is that
> knowing what gyroscopic effect is, and how it is applied in the use of a
> bicycle are not needed to use a bicycle.

Well, as has been shown, gyroscopic effects have nothing to do with
bicycles.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list