[Bug 154535] ability to remove zoom in/out tool like any other applet

[Josh Berry]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154535         




------- Additional Comments From des condordes net  2008-06-24 03:40 -------
On Monday 23 June 2008 15:53:13 Aaron J.Seigo wrote:
> "I'm operating under a set of norms that says when someone asks
> you a polite question, the courteous thing to do is answer it."
>
> when the question is in context.


This is a bug report.  Asking how the bug is going to be addressed is 
definitely in context.

> these threads are wastes of my time. i
> have answered these issues before elsewhere, and that doesn't seem to help.


Where?  If you have, I'm obviously not aware of it.

> perhaps you aren't aware of just how much of my time is spent dealing with
> people just like you trying to have conversations just like this one. do
> you think it's a useful way to spend my time? i don't.


You could've just pasted the URL to the answer, and we would've been done a 
long time ago.

And if there's one, authoritative place for such a thing, a bug report is it.

> "But understand that throwing a tantrum, instead
> of providing an answer, "
>
> it's hardly been a tantrum, and you're really working against your goal of
> having an open dialog by using such terms.


I think it's an accurate label.  You are obviously very frustrated, and that 
seems more important to you than the bug right now.  My choice of the word 
"tantrum" reflects that.  I'm sorry if you felt that characterization was 
somehow insulting -- it wasn't intended that way.

> "And that is purely because you have chosen not to respond usefully."
>
> see, this gets painfully close to you acting like you feel you are owed an
> answer. if i don't provide a useful answer, have said i don't have time to
> discuss it further and i don't owe you an answer, then just accept it and
> walk away.


I was reacting to the implication that your frustration, and your refusal to 
answer the question, was somehow specifically my fault.

> "But when I ask you to explain, I get, "No, I won't explain, STFU."
>
> that's a rather mean characterization of what i've actually said in this
> thread. again, you're working against your own goal here of open
> communication by doing so.


"Just accept it and walk away" sounds like a sugar-coated way of saying "STFU" 
to me.  It's more polite, certainly, but the underlying meaning is the same.

> "for the love of God take a vacation before you bite some other
> unwitting user's head off."
>
> it's not about me taking vacations, it's about dealing with people who
> behave in a way that isn't sociable. e.g. saying they don't think they are
> owed an answer, but then acting very much like they do feel that way.


Most of my issue has been with your tone.  I totally understand "I don't have 
time for this", but the way in which you delivered that message has, in turn, 
frustrated and pissed off a number of people, myself included.  My persistence 
has been rooted in trying to punch through the emotional noise and reach a 
conclusion which is acceptable to more than just Aaron Seigo.

Besides, I think we've expended more effort in beating the meta-issues to 
death than we would have spent had you answered the question in the first 
place.

And what happens when the next annoyed user comes along and finds this bug?  
Are we going to go through this whole thing yet again?

This has devolved into a meta-discussion, which is off-topic for a bug report.  
Worse, it has become confrontational.  So I'm done as well.