[FFmpeg-cvslog] r14484 - in trunk/libavcodec: audioconvert.c audioconvert.h

[The Wanderer]

Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 03:29:31PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Diego Biurrun wrote:

>>> You have said it yourself:
>>> 
>>>   Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with
>>>   any side of it.
>> 
>> For the record, since omitting to mention it feels dishonest: what
>> this originally referred to is the fact that I would sometimes see
>> a discussion (or an argument) taking place, in which one or more
>> positions which I felt were important were not being advocated by
>> any side, and so would enter the discussion and argue one or more
>> of those positions - whether or not I agreed with them - simply
>> because I felt that the discussion could not be fully and
>> comprehensively resolved without taking those positions into
>> consideration.
>> 
>> Admittedly these tended to be philosophical and/or theological
>> arguments, and the same principle does not so easily apply to more
>> technical discussions; that may well be part of why, as I said,
>> this warning is no longer so applicable as once it was. I do,
>> however, still do much the same thing from time to time.
> 
> I just wanted to say that your arguments are very appreciated (at
> least by me, even if others disagree). And it would be sad if diego
> would scare you off the lists,

There are, at least, no worries on this score. I have been subjected on
occasion to significantly more direct, explicit and repeated offense in
some other forums than anyone has ever offered me here, and I haven't
left there yet either; the most I would be likely to do, if sufficiently
pushed, would be to shut up for a while (and possibly stop reading the
lists for long enough to recover emotional equilibrium, though I would
catch up afterwards).

> your arguments did certainly sometimes point to interresting aspects
> that where not obvious (to me at least). An example of this surely 
> where your arguments in the uoti flames.

Thank you; that is what I aim for in doing interjecting that way (and
was hoping for in the specific posts I think you're referring to), and I
don't feel that I succeed nearly as often as I'd like.

> And arguments opposing ones own, are rarely "welcome" by that person.
> If he calls that person a troll, distracting or worse is more an
> indicator of that persons politeness than anyting else.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I can certainly see how in some cases I
could be said to have failed to contribute anything worthwhile, and
indeed to have in the end been no more than a distraction from what the
end result wound up being. Those are, however, most often simply the
cases where I failed in my intent; I'll be one of the first to admit
that my skills at expressing my thoughts clearly are not always remotely
what they should be.

> Besides one cannot find a consensus if a significant portion of the
> people involved are prevented from participating in the discussions
> or scared away. That way one just finds his own oppinion, alone in an
> empty room ...

This is true. The obvious counterargument in at least this case would be
that I'm not actually involved, just interested; that doesn't make it
any less true, nor does it necessarily mean that I should keep out of
things, but it is a point worth keeping in mind nonetheless.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.