📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05
📝 Original message:Gregory,
you are good at language and its easy to write eloquent words.
Looking at this little dialog, for instance;
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:
> > 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all
> > technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that
> > person agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial.
[snip]
On Monday 5. October 2015 18.35.13 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I am aware of no instance where an active contributor to core has made
> the claim that no change to consensus can happen without 100% support
This *seems* to read like the same thing. But it is not. Your version is more
polarizing and changes the intent quite dramatically.
It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also
makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.
For the second time in this thread.
I would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 17:42:44
in reply to nevent1q…tzgw
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Published at
2023-06-07 17:42:44Event JSON
{
"id": "d8729143be65ebb3b2a2041648d63196ddc599024c10334cd55bdaa601ece532",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686159764,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b171b0a181c0ea41f6054eb15f1f19559c90fd9ce9e5f5fc159720aea23cfd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1a55a50c651895413b2e7f857c920ca215ba91623bbdb5410ae6ab76543193c9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:Gregory,\n\nyou are good at language and its easy to write eloquent words.\n\nLooking at this little dialog, for instance;\n\nOn Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:\n\u003e \u003e 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all\n\u003e \u003e technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that\n\u003e \u003e person agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial.\n[snip]\nOn Monday 5. October 2015 18.35.13 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I am aware of no instance where an active contributor to core has made\n\u003e the claim that no change to consensus can happen without 100% support\n\nThis *seems* to read like the same thing. But it is not. Your version is more \npolarizing and changes the intent quite dramatically.\n\nIt is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also \nmakes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.\nFor the second time in this thread. \nI would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.",
"sig": "b78c1540720eda172de321348b0e1a8d0880fa7efc71d1f032b8227b5b256a61240f13b6e6d7e24c9acd57d3dce6cbec91ed51d67c722c693bf67e92b2920572"
}