From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:13:35 +0100
Message-ID: <1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQ3Qs=s7qwhxjwJa9cLJLMJg+LXjPQDCGUDMEjyrHqO_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQ3Qs=s7qwhxjwJa9cLJLMJg+LXjPQDCGUDMEjyrHqO_A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

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.