Ted, On 30/07/18 20:32, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Another way to try say it might be: If you muck with the >> volunteer ethos too much, as is being suggested by a few >> people on this thread, you are very very likely to destroy >> that volunteer ethos entirely. >> > > This response (1) assumes without demonstrating that it is true that there > is, generally, a volunteer ethos, and (2) presumes, without showing why, > that this purported volunteer ethos would be destroyed by the various > half-baked proposals that have been bandied about here. I'm sorry, but much as I respect you, I'm just not interested in engaging in what I see as purely rhetorical arguments with you on this. I believe I have already offered real arguments against your self-proclaimed half-baked ideas. See Melinda's and Ned's mails agreeing with one such for example. And I do consider Warren's mails and the above as substantive argument too, and am surprised that that's not clear to you. But please don't expect me to come back with an enumeration of all the problems with your not-yet-even-a-proposal, nor with yet more words on this, as I am not willing to spend/waste time doing that - for me, the already over-long discussion on this is abundantly clear with an equally clear and obvious conclusion to be drawn. (I'll be happy to chat about this next time we're f2f, but I'm not willing to spend time typing more given the discussion to date.) Cheers, S. > > >> The half-baked ideas I've seen throw out in this thread seem >> to be exemplars in mucking about carelessly, or would be if >> taken seriously. (And in case someone wonders, I don't see >> any value in this thread as a thought-experiment either.) > > > I could say the same about every post you've made so far. If the > half-baked proposals are so bad (and I agree that they are half-baked: the > way things get fully baked is by deciding to explore them in enough detail > to bake them), and you want to shut them down, you should come up with > better arguments. I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong: maybe > they are correct. Maybe you even have good reasons for believing them. > But you haven't actually argued in support of your conclusions—you've just > stated them in a way that suggests that it should be obvious to any reader > that they are correct, and that if the reader does not find them correct, > the reader, and not the argument, is what's broken. >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
