Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 14:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 03:30 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Of course he had
> >> every right to feel extremely insulted for having had his explicit
> >> request (early objection) completely ignored, regardless of his position
> >> in the GNU project.  If he behaved badly, consider he was reacting to
> >> incredible insult.  What excuse did the community have for its
> >> incredibly insulting behavior?
> 
> > Really???  Is it now an "incredible insult" if community consensus
> > considers but does not agree with your opinion?
> 
> No, that's not the insulting part.
> 
> The insulting part is seeing (and posting as part of the patch) the "Do
> not remove", not asking him or even letting him know, and putting the
> change in despite the "Do not remove" objection, as if it wasn't even
> there.  Not as if his opinion was like anyone else's, but as if it
> didn't even count.

You don't know that it was disregarded.  Because in case if was counted,
the outcome would have been the same.

Claiming ownership to a 26-year old piece of code in a project that one
doesn't contribute to anymore, and saying that every change is an
insult, is a little funny from a copyleft perspective, don't you
think? :) 

> > It was a completely professional discussion, he didn't win according to
> > community consensus rules, that's it.
> 
> "He didn't win" would be almost funny, if this were a game.

You realize one also uses "win" in the context of discussions or
arguments?  Like in "win a completely professional discussion", to
remind you of the first part of my sentence?

> Not just
> because the debate is still underway,

Look at the numbers.  You can of course think there's still a chance for
a major change in opinions, but that seems very unlikely to me.

> but mainly because he wasn't even
> invited to the game before it was first misregarded as over.

Not every situation in life is like a coin toss, where you have an
always fair chance of winning (ie, 50%).  That does not mean the
discussion is unfair.