help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs: Problems of the Scratch Buffer


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Emacs: Problems of the Scratch Buffer
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:52:18 +0300

> From: Chiron <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:32:07 GMT
> 
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:34:03 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> Well, I'm just going by the behavior of the current maintainers.
> > 
> > What behavior?  Facts, please.
> > 
> 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.

> >> 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?

> > 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.

> I think you have mistaken my comments for those of someone else.

I did not.

> It may be helpful to review the thread to see what I was originally
> responding to.

I already did that.

> 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.

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

They do.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]