Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I never offered smartpm as any solution to any problem
> referenced in this discussion. I merely asked if he had
> used smartpm. The assumption that I asked that in order
> to solve his issues was yours and yours alone.
As I said, it was like we were in a middle of a discussion on
an Apache server issue and you asked if someone had tried the
-- and let me make this a little more "friendly" -- the Opera
browser on Linux instead of Firefox. It had nothing to do
with the entire thread.
Now I _never_ said you couldn't make your comment. But I
_did_ point out it was wholly inapplicable to our thread
before someone else thought the SmartPM client could solve a
problem that the YUM client supposedly had. That's what I
wanted to avoid. It took awhile just to get to the point of
understand that the YUM client doesn't access RPMs directly
for resolution from a YUM repository.
Given the timing and content of your post, it was a safe
assumption to make. Again, if you're offended, I can't do
much about that.
> You need to keep in mind that it is actually ok for
> topics of conversation to move tangentially and that
> shouldn't require the blessing of Bryan.
You can introduce _all_ the posts you want. If it doesn't
apply to the current thread, I'll point that out before
someone assumes it is a possible solution. If you want to
take offense to that, then by all means, consider the
relevance and the possible responses you might get.
In other words -- right now -- I think you're "backtracking"
and trying to pin the fact that you weren't following the
thread. Frankly, I could care less. But it's clear you now
have an "agenda" that I'm out to control every thread.
Perhaps it just might be that I'm honestly interested in
coming up with solutions (like the possible createrepo hack),
or at least explaining "best practices" (in dealing with a
lot of issues, such as FRAID support).
> I never really attempted to dissect the discussion that you
> and Les were having because having had discussions with
both
> of you already, I am well aware that neither of you would
> ever concede an inch - even if you pondered each other's
> points of view long enough to try and make them
> work for you, neither of you would allow it just out of
> principle (that's my opinion). I believe this because I
> have had these types of discussions with Les and you
before.
> I had to be a moron to enter the discussion - even
> peripherally as I did (and got compared to Dilbert's boss
> as a reward).
Yes, after you made comments just like the above! If you
psycho-analyze myself, don't get upset if I do the same in
reverse. Re-read the lineage, _you_ analyzed me, so I just
analyzed you right back.
Which is my #1 pet-peeve, hypocracy. Now you're just
dragging Les' name down in this above rant as well. Don't
take it out on him if you have a problem with me, might as
well stay fixated on me, as you have clearly become.
> You would be well served to invite others to participate in
> discussions rather than bite them off as you do if for no
> other reason than to give the impression of geniality.
And you might be well served to not be a hypocrite.
Don't analyze me if you can't stand if I analyze you right
back.
> If you added geniality and humility to your arguments,
> they would be more persuasive.
I actually _do_ when I have less experience in an area.
I'm very humble and I clearly concede to those more
experienced in an area. Take DAG for instance.
But in the areas where I'm very strong, and someone is
discussing something from second or third-hand (*0* actual
experience), I tend to be "very confident" and I try to avoid
being "cocky."
Yes, comparing you to Dilbert's boss was "cocky," I'll admit.
But if you re-read your own analysis of myself -- let alone
Les who didn't even respond to you -- you might consider how
hypocritical your post looks.
> This is another way of saying that persuasion is an art -
> not a test of wills
Apparently you like the "do as I say not do as I do"
attitude?
> nor a referendum of one's knowledge.
I'm not quoting credentials or anything else. But I am "very
confident" on select technical matters. You'll see me
_steer_clear_ of things I don't have a heafty level of
first-hand experience.
If you read my posts again and again, all I'm doing is
relaying first-hand experience. That's all I can do.
Everything else would be postering and self-defeating.
--
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
