[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[marbux]

On 6/2/07, Daniel <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>
> marbux wrote:
> > On 6/2/07, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Saturday 02 June 2007 14:40:51 marbux wrote:
> >> > > Marbux, does this mean that your beef with the proposal is that it
> >> > > adds a feature to ODF that MS Word doesn't have?
> >>
> >> > No. That was Thomas' characterization.
> >>
> >> Interresting, then what _were_ you saying?
> >>
> > I'll answer that question right after you answer my question about that
> > round-trip use case I mentioned, the use case just quoted by Daniel at
> the
> > end of his post.
>
> So you refuse to tell us what you are saying until Thomas can respond to
> what you are saying?


No, I said what I said.

You don't see a problem with that?

I explained why. You do not address my reasons.

You posed a

> scenario that comes down to having an issue with a feature being added
> to ODF that is not present in MS Office. I said as much and you replied
> that that's not what you said. Ok, so what _did_ you say?


Read my words instead of your own.

And you reply

> that you'll only tell us what you said after we've replied. This is
> bewildering.


No. But I will elaborate. I require no reply from you, only from Thomas.
This is tactical. It is about whether Thomas is going to get off his "don't
talk about Marbux's point" position. It encompasses way more than what was
said and not said in this thread and goes back to the original conversation
on the TC list, as I have briefed.

> You very effectively and rudely ended our prior conversation with
> > your subsequent bald denials that there was any incompatibility
> involved.
>
> Because you are never rude in emails, right?


I do not recall a single instance in which I have been rude in an email
conversation, although I'm not going to ransack my computer looking for
proof that my memory has failed me on that point. If something crept in that
you interpreted as rudeness, please identify specifically what it was I said
and discuss the specific problem you see with *my* identified words so I can
respond.

> My question regarding the use case was:
> >
> > "How does the WW IMBR list tuple get back to WW IMBR without resorting
> to
> > application level hacks, using only the markup provided in the ODF
> > 1.2specification as modified by the lists amendment?"
>
> In other words, your beef is that ODF 1.2 will have a feature that you
> can't deal with.


No. You mischaracterize my words to your liking and then attack the straw
man. But my present beef is that Thomas announced his participation in this
discussion with a mere ain't-no-interop-problem-here" platitude and a
put-down insult directed specifically at me ("pretty easy to counter").

The issue is whether I am willing to participate in an unprincipled
discussion of the issue. I am not. My present issue is procedural, not an
issue that goes to the merits of the discussion. I have raised a point of
order.


> Intending no disrespect to those so afflicted, I do not believe I am
> > conversing with someone who suffers from Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity
> > Disorder. KWord is strong testimony that you do not have that
> > disability. Am
> > I wrong? If I am, then you will need to provide me with a communications
> > protocol that accommodates your disability.
>
> I thought you were opposed to ad hominem attacks and personal insults.
> As far as I can see in this thread all insults have come from you
> Marbux. Please try to offer people a minimum of respect. As you well
> know, throwing insults and ad hominems only suggests to the audience
> that you have no real position.


I made no ad hominem attack in my quoted words and was not disrespectful.
Thomas requested that I write a response for someone with a 30-word
attention span. I stated my my belief that I was *not* conversing with
someone so afflicted. Where is the ad hominem attack in that? It was in the
request that I write a response for someone with a 30-word attention span,
not in my response. It's a replay of Thomas' previous accusations on the
adoption TC list that I in effect suffer from verbal diarrhea.

As to the authorship of the insults in this thread, I have already offered
one detailed analysis.  If need be I can do another.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070602/9e99fbf2/attachment-0001.htm