Message 04204 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 18/27 L17 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Kula and other comments from Gregers

Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:29:07 +0100, Gregers Petersen <gp.ioa> wrote:

This is a discussion which takes place between you and me, it might take
place on a public mailing-list - but I'm talking to you not everyone in
the world.

I disagree, we are having a discussion on a public list exactly because
other people
are welcome to read and contribute. This is n or about me or my specific
knowledge, you are simply
posturing, expecting me to defer to your rank by making the topic how many
books we have read, presumable
to demonstrate you have read more. Forget it, assume I have read none and
make your point.

Not sure what you are asking, a big man is an form of chief or sub chief
as far as I know.

Here you'r some what wrong: A "Big Man" is given authority by people,
while a "Great Man" has authority over people (wields power) - and this
then asks; what is a "chief"?

I already answer this. A chiefdom is a postulated transitional society
between kin-communal and state-based, I'm certain you know this so
if you have some new information to add, please do so and _apply_ it to the topic being discussed.
This is not a who knows more about anthropology contest.

Could you elaborate with an example or two, of such chiefdoms?

No. Why should I when you have not established the relevance of any of

What point are you trying to make?

I will make an analogy.

You seem to identify with being a software-developer, a coder. Then you probably also know how the process of submitting a patch to an existing project works.

Someone like you comes along and presents an interesting idea, the present core-developers of the project takes a look at the code (text) and they start making comments - a discussion between individuals take place about specific details and methodology. Someone like me ends-up taking a look a the patch (thinking like others that the idea is interesting), applies it to a build, and then it happens. The patch brakes the build and numerous errors are flagged. I make a note on the official mailing-list, mentioning that using the "object" Kula in the way it is done in your patch doesn't compile. The very odd thing is that you never ask me for an explanation about what Kula is all about? Would your reaction had been the same if I instead of stating; 'the anthropologists' - had stated 'kernel-coders' have found out that this use of Kula is wrong. Would you have reacted differently to such an statement?

But, all this results in a problematic discussion between you and me, which slowly uncovers that the various arguments in your patch have been copied from unknown sources - you seem to be very unwilling to offers the essential credits. It even ends with you admitting that you have no idea about how the code you'r using works - you have just mashed something together.
Unfortunately this discussion ends with me making the point: RTFM!

You on the other hand, just 'flame around' and deny that you need to read and understand the manual, you even deny that you need to re-write your own patch - you even claim that it is up to someone like me to fix your patch, to re-write the code in your name. The reality is that you will never get anywhere with your patch, if you don't listen to what the present developers are commenting and suggesting, and accept that you need and have to do some hard work.

Making accusations and trying to intimidate people will just get you banned.

I'm not asking you to feel sorry for me, I'm telling you not to assign me
work or ask me
to make your argument for you. If you have something to say, say it,
otherwise don't waste our time with games.

You make a very particular mistake in your last sentence (above). You suddently use the plural tense ('our') - using 'third person' requires both that you know who you are speaking for and that these people acknowledge that you have the right to speak on their behalf. You should a long time ago have learned that you can only speak with one voice, and that people only will appreciate your ideas if they are convincing and rest on hard work - claiming to be a "Big Man" does not make one a "Big Man".

This ends this discussion.


Gregers Petersen
Anthropologist, Ph.d fellow
Department of Organization
Copenhagen Business School
Kilen, Kilevej 14A, 4.
DK - 2000 Frederiksberg
Skype: gregers.ioa
Jabber: glp

Free Software & Ownership
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 18/27 L17 [In index]
Message 04204 [Homepage] [Navigation]