[16:42] <jphilips> Unit193: how to send you a patch for the core website for the explanation of the apt command
[16:45] <jphilips> okay i see i shared it by pastebin the last time, so here it is - https://pastebin.com/9Ust3vdm
[17:00] -SwissBot:#xubuntu-devel- Reminder: Next meeting chair is knome
[17:35] <jphilips> bluesabre: is knome chairing the next meeting ^^^
[22:11] <Unit193> jphilips_: Sure, sounds good to me.  Though with one minor change: s/install/installs/, "..that it installs the.."
[22:12] <jphilips_> Unit193: great
[23:24] <jphilips> my computer crashed and after restarting, pressing different keys results in a different key being pressed. any suggestions how to fix.
[23:26] <jphilips> i press Esc and it presses v, i press Ctrl and it presses Ctrl_L and Ctrl+XF86Back
[23:49] <pleia2> check the keyboard layout?


[23:56] <the_grouch> is anyone familiar withubuntustudio
[23:56] <kern> zsquareplusc well what i know is that all the files that were installed into the folder the user owned are root
[23:56] <nemo> dr_willis: reaaaallly.  so, think it'd make sense to make 2 swap partitions then?
[23:57] <matreya6> nemo, it happens on my box as well, I use a spanking new Asus P5Q with Intel E8400 Core 2 Duo
[23:57] <joaopinto> nemo, just make one, 2xram
[23:57] <dr_willis> nemo,  I just dont use hibernate/suspend any more.. to many issues under linux and windows for me to bother with it.
[23:57] <Guest55592> oops, be right back....
[23:57] <nemo> joaopinto: hrm. that seems again like a bad idea.  what happens if the swap gets used to 1x + y point?
[23:57] <matreya6> dr_willis, it works like a dream on my macbook, though, also in Linux...
[23:57] <the_grouch> I realize that ubuntu is created with multicore processors in mind; however, is ubuntu studio also optimized for dual and quad core?
[23:58] <dr_willis> matreya6,  you are lucky then. :)
[23:58] <nemo> joaopinto: I'm basically seeking reassurence it is reliable, otherwise if it isn't, how to tell swap to use a partition reserved just for it
[23:58] <zsquareplusc> the_grouch: that depends on each application. some need to be told to use multiple cores
[23:58] <nemo> joaopinto: so far you guys haven't been very reassurring ;)
[23:58] <joaopinto> nemo, if your swap usage is > ram size, using the system will be a problem, not hibernating :)
[23:58] <nemo> joaopinto: no no
[23:59] <matreya6> dr_willis, yes where my macbook is concerned, but my other 2 boxes fail constantly in that department
[23:59] <nemo> joaopinto: my point is lets say I'm using, oh, openoffice, firefox, gimp, inkscape, maybe running tomcat and eclipse...
[23:59] <DarkMage2303> /etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf
[23:59] <nemo> joaopinto: I'm sucking up memory, and I am using not only 2GiB of memory but also, oh, 2.1GiB of swap
[23:59] <nemo> joaopinto: and I try to hibernate
[23:59] <DarkMage2303> For my router, I have to setup my DNS settings manually - I can't let my computer find it automaticly or else my internet won't work. I'm trying to setup the DNS settings on Ubuntu 8.10, can someone help me?
[23:59] <nemo> joaopinto: seems there simply won't be enough swap.  what happens then?
[23:59] <sinan> BlinkyToon: Jordan, middle east.
[23:59] <nemo> joaopinto: this is in a scenario of 4GiB of swap, 2GiB of memory
[23:59] <joaopinto> nemo, hibernating a system with such an high memory usage is insane :)


[11:25] <piyush> Hello friends
[11:26] <piyush> i am installing maas but when i run as localhost/maas and login then there is no "load image" option in images tab .
[11:27] <piyush> how can i deal with this error or load image manually
[11:57] <piyush> hello
[19:01] <TrXuk> hi @blake_r Re-installed 10.14 from scratch as a new MaaS following the install documentation here: https://maas.ubuntu.com/docs1.7/install.html Same issue persists. Can see that the node to enlist does sucessfully connect to iSCSI tgtd on the MaaS server
[19:01] <TrXuk> @blake_r tcp        0      0 <IP_ADDRESS>:3260            <IP_ADDRESS>:*               LISTEN      1322/tgtd        tcp        0   4144 <IP_ADDRESS>:3260          <IP_ADDRESS>:54088       ESTABLISHED 1322/tgtd
[19:02] <TrXuk> @blake_r however, still seeing exactly the same issue
[19:03] <TrXuk> @blake_r screenshot of dropping to initrd: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jezjjdhqplij5q9/Screenshot%202015-01-14%2019.00.14.JPG?dl=0
[19:03] <TrXuk> @blake_r still looks very much like the bug @ https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1391354 . Just don't know why I'm the only one running into it from the default install
[19:04] <blake_r> TrXuk: what does this show "sudo tgtadm --lld iscsi --mode target --op show"
[19:06] <TrXuk> @blake_r awesome, solaris command naming creeping into linux :P http://pastebin.com/AKXrKRav
[19:07] <blake_r> TrXuk: do you have a firewall between the node and the cluster?
[19:08] <TrXuk> Nope, physical Layer 2
[19:08] <TrXuk> @blake_r MaaS IP: <IP_ADDRESS>/24, DHCP given to node direct from MaaS: <IP_ADDRESS>/24
[19:08] <TrXuk>  tcp        0   4144 <IP_ADDRESS>:3260          <IP_ADDRESS>:54088       ESTABLISHED 1322/tgtd
[19:10] <TrXuk> root@maas1:~# ping <IP_ADDRESS> PING <IP_ADDRESS> (<IP_ADDRESS>) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from <IP_ADDRESS>: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.134 ms 64 bytes from <IP_ADDRESS>: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.161 ms 64 bytes from <IP_ADDRESS>: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.146 ms ^C --- <IP_ADDRESS> ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.134/0.147/0.161/0.011 ms root@maas1:~#  arp -a ? (10.0
[19:11] <blake_r> TrXuk: its wierd that the node is not able to connect to that iscsi target
[19:11] <TrXuk> @blake_r
[19:12] <TrXuk> @blake_r i'm still not 100% sure it's unable to connect... The bug report still seems to match excatly... Ie, if i look right now in the (initramfs) shell, ls /dev/disk/by-path has no ip-* entries
[19:13] <blake_r> TrXuk: no actually its alittle differnet
[19:13] <blake_r> TrXuk: its a network issue with the node not able to connect to the iscsi target running on the cluster, not a missing permission or file issue in the image
[19:14] <TrXuk> But MaaS shows an established TCP session from the Node's IP to TGTD
[19:15] <TrXuk> and the TGT output you recommended shows connection 0 and the source IP of the PXEbooted node in question:  I_T nexus: 1             Initiator: maas-enlist alias: maas-enlist             Connection: 0                 IP Address: <IP_ADDRESS>
[19:15] <TrXuk> @blake_r is there anything in the initrd shell in terms of binaries that could help me debug further? like manually trying the iscsi initiator again?
[19:16] <TrXuk> @blake_r or anything else you can suggest? from a TCP standpoint as above, it looks like it sucessfully contacted tgtd
[19:17] <blake_r> TrXuk: yeah there, cant remember of the top my head
[19:17] <blake_r> TrXuk: list the contents of /scripts in the initramfs
[19:26] <TrXuk> local, functions, nfs
[19:26] <TrXuk> then dir's init-top, local-bottom, panic, local-premount, init-bottom, init-premount and local-top
[19:36] <blake_r> TrXuk: contents of local-top
[20:02] <TrXuk> @blake_r sorry for the delay. cryptopensc, ORDER, crypto, iscsi
[20:02] <blake_r> TrXuk: try /scripts/local-top/iscsi
[20:03] <TrXuk> ./iscsi ... Logging in, <IP_ADDRESS>:3620... initiator reported error 15 - session exists
[20:03] <TrXuk> Tries twice
[23:34] <TrXuk> @blake_r got d/c
[23:41] <bmorriso> When I try and do an apt-get update, it uses the MAAS IP as a mirror, but in /etc/apt/sources.list it has archive.ubuntu.com -- after the box was provisioned, it no longer has access to MAAS, so how do I stop it from trying to use the MAAS box as an apt mirror?
[23:52] <blake_r> bmorriso: /etc/apt/apt.conf you will see a reference to the maas server
[23:52] <blake_r> as http proxy
[23:53] <blake_r> TrXuk: not in front of PC at moment to provide support, I can look more into tomorrow
[23:53] <bmorriso> I have /etc/apt.conf.d/90-curtin-aptproxy but no /etc/apt/apt.conf it has Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "http://ip.of.maas:8000/";
[23:53] <blake_r> ah there you go
[23:53] <blake_r> just delete that file
[23:54] <bmorriso> beautiful
[23:54] <bmorriso> Thank you very much!
[23:55] <TrXuk> @blake_r works for me, thanks for your help on this one. Learning more about MaaS than I really wanted to ;)... but i guess thats never a bad thing!


[00:00] <G> Ouch, glibc GHOST doesn't sound very nice... http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2015/01/27/9
[00:16] <olly> it's already fixed in upstream glibc at least
[00:16] <olly> not looked at ubuntu, but debian testing and unstable weren't vulnerable
[00:17] <G> basically all the LTS' from <'13 because it wasn't backported as security until today
[00:18] <olly> the email from the discoverers is an interesting read
[00:23] <G> yeah, I just saw an interesting tweet too:  'The embargo on CVE-2015-0235 was broken by a ham-fisted PR engaged by the firm who discovered it. So CVEs now come with cute names AND PR.' https://twitter.com/matthewbloch/status/560216208751202307
[00:23]  * olly was wondering earlier what the indirect benefits from finding a high-profile vulnerability are
[00:24] <G> well I guess cute name + PR dept answers it... Trademark the cute name, be the only company that can sell the "<cute name> Detection Tool"
[00:25] <olly> i suspect the real benefits are from reputation - if you're looking for someone to audit some code, going for the guys who found X, Y and Z is an obvious choice
[00:25] <G> that too
[00:26] <G> better to list a bunch of cute names than random CVE numbers that a lot of people won't make the connection too
[00:26] <olly> parallels to FOSS development - if you want some work doing related to a project, you're likely to hire the people who put a lot of work into it
[00:26] <olly> true
[00:28] <olly> it's kind of a nice eco-system - there's a motivation for people to put work into finding vulnerabilities without direct renumeration
[00:28] <G> + the fact that for the major online-impacting bugs that have cute names, the media are using on them.  So even 'muggles' know abotu Heartbleed for instance.   "Hey #non-up-with-tech-boss, CompanyX can audit our code for $x, they were the ones that found Heartbleed"  does sound better than "that found CVE-2014-...."
[00:28] <olly> remuneration even
[00:30] <G> so yeah, you are right, PR part is likely so they put info packets together for justification of paying that company for other security related services
[00:31] <olly> quite possibly they have a PR company anyway
[00:31] <olly> many companies do
[01:38] <olly> does trusty mount /tmp noexec?
[01:51] <mwhudson> not sure, utopic does
[02:13] <olly> thanks
[19:05] <ibeardslee> morning


[10:01] <kalikiana_> t1mp: Have you seen http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~aacid/+junk/ubuntu-app-themes/view/head:/snapcraft.yaml before? I'm wondering if UITK can support the same. As long as $QML2_IMPORT_PATH includes the $SNAP folder, it should be possible to prepare a snap with a new theme, right? That, and adding the theme to the .ini file in the ~/snap/* folder of the consuming snap
[10:20] <kalikiana_> Note: Took the discussion to #snappy


[13:48] <sil2100> Hello! I'm looking for some ubuntu archive admins that could help approving the addition of new binary packages in a landing that's waiting for approval in the CI Train
[13:48] <sil2100> The packaging diff already got approved by kenvandine, we now need someone to +1 the new binary packages that will appear after publishing
[13:48] <sil2100> The packaging diff:
[13:48] <sil2100> https://ci-train.ubuntu.com/job/ubuntu-landing-010-2-publish/80/artifact/unity-scopes-api_packaging_changes.diff
[14:38] <cyphermox> if someone could review this network-manager SRU ^, it's long overdue :)
[14:51] <tjaalton> could someone ack the new binaries of mesa-lts-vivid for trusty-proposed
[15:07] <pitti> tjaalton: done
[15:21] <tjaalton> pitti: nice, thanks
[15:28] <utlemming> hi all...question on the backports process. I've upload open-vm-tools for {trusty,vivid}-backports and its sitting in the queue. The wiki is unclear as to who approves. Is it the release team or the backports team?
[15:28] <utlemming> or can an SRU team member approve it?
[17:01] <infinity> utlemming: Backports are the backport team, but the more interesting question would be why are you using backports for that?
[17:02] <infinity> utlemming: Backports isn't appropriate for anything we'll end up "supporting" (ie: if you're putting it in images, or encouraging customers to use it).
[17:38] <utlemming> infinity: oh, no way am I putting that in images. I just backported it because people are asking about it.
[17:39] <infinity> utlemming: Kay.  So, yeah, backports are the backports team, I don't touch 'em.
[21:34] <doko> can't find any email about the rejection of binutils 2.24-5ubuntu14 for trusty. can I re-read the reason ?


[10:35] <cheriffa> salut
[13:51] <BluesKaj> Hi all
[14:38] <buser> Hi
[18:11] <hamp> Hi!
[18:11] <hamp> I'm switching over to kubuntu from on/off usage of ubuntu and loving the additinoal kde features. I am working on installing a kwin script to allow shortcuts to fit windows in a 3xN grid. I added/removed `ultrawide windows` 3x and it seems to have added shortcuts to shortcuts-kwin 3x.
[18:11] <hamp> Is there a way to clean this up?
[18:36] <canadaguy> Hello, anyone have info on settingup autostart for x11vnc server on Kubuntu 22, it will start from the command line with x11vnc -usepw -display :0, instruction i find for setting up a service do not work....
[18:43] <diogenes_Vx15> canadaguy, just make a .desktop file with Exec=sh -c "x11vnc -usepw -display :0" and put it into: ~/.config/autostart
[18:47] <canadaguy> thank you
[18:48] <diogenes_Vx15> canadaguy, did it work?


[01:17] <pangolin> !privmsg
[01:17] <pangolin> !privmsg is <alias> pm
[01:17] <pangolin> !privmsg
[01:17] <pangolin> !privmsg > Resistance
[08:15] <truepurple> ikonia, rather then that being cutting me a break, its more like bordor-line harassment. Just because you could be worse and don't, doesn't make it "cutting me a break"
[08:15] <truepurple> If your going to make up rules, at least please define them!
[08:16] <ikonia> truepurple: I'd wait for someone else to turn up to assist you on this, I don't want to go through explaining that asking the same question in multiple ubuntu channels is not something we like (asking at the same time - a minutes break between them) you've been asked, kicked/banned/warned/asked again about this, I just "asked" you again nicley 2 times to not do it, you have to argue, so someone else can deal with you as I don't want to waste more time
[08:16] <truepurple> How long before asking on one channel, do I have to wait before asking in another?
[08:17] <truepurple> You gave me grief last time with 15 minutes apart in the asking
[08:17] <ikonia> truepurple: give it 15 minutes for someone else to be free in this channel to go over it with again
[08:17] <ikonia> it was not 15 minutes apart last time - it was minutes, the same as it was this time
[08:17] <ikonia> I'd suggest waiting 15 minutes in this channel for another operator to be free
[08:17] <truepurple> No, it was 15 minutes according to timestamp
[08:17] <ikonia> (please)
[08:17] <truepurple> last time
[08:17] <truepurple> almost exactly that
[08:18] <truepurple> Which is why I was so mad last time
[08:18] <ikonia> truepurple: please wait for another operator to be free in this channel,
[08:18] <truepurple> That and you never defined a time limit
[08:18] <truepurple> You mean you want me to talk to someone else about the issue between us?
[08:19] <ikonia> there is no issue between us, I'd just like you to not post the same questions in mutliple ubuntu channels minutes apart as you have been asked multiple times
[08:19] <ikonia> I don't want to go over it again with you, so I suggest waiting for another operator to be free
[08:19] <ikonia> (please)
[08:19] <truepurple> There is a issue between us, it is just that your OP power tramples all over my side of our issue
[08:19] <truepurple> *OPS, er whatever the term is for IRC
[08:20] <truepurple> I don't understand what you mean about waiting for another operator to be free, free to do what exactly?
[08:23] <truepurple> ikonia, if you doubt it was 15 minutes, if the system saves that long ago, check it yourself
[08:25] <ikonia> truepurple: 3 operators explained this to you last time, I genuinly don't want to ban you (which is why I asked you two times) but at the same time I don't want to go through this whole conversation again
[08:25] <ikonia> that's why I suggested waiting for another operator to perhaps explain it to you again
[08:25] <ikonia> I'm hopeful someone will be free quickly
[08:27] <ikonia> (if someone isn't free very shorlty, I will explain it again clearly, I'm not intendeding to leave you in limbo)
[08:27] <truepurple> ikonia, it was 15 minutes, the proof is in the system, if anyone needs explaining, it is you, I told you last time it was 15 minutes too, back when it was very very easy to check, you just ignored me and repeated infinitely your school teacher like lecture as though the possibility of you being in error was laughable
[08:28] <truepurple> talking down to me, ignoring me, giving me one sided lectures
[08:28] <truepurple> and then when you got sick of me trying to talk back, kicking me out with more punishment
[08:29] <truepurple> And here you are now talking like you want someone else to give me their best impression of a simple robot
[08:30] <truepurple> That can't comprehend its own BSOD
[08:33] <ikonia> truepurple: ok - there doesn't appear to be anyone else around, so I'll try to be clear to not cause any confusion, or cause any reason for discussion.
[08:33] <truepurple> Though I must admit the manners are much better, though then again I can't keep track of who said what back then, but considering many of you sat around and metaphorically noded your head at the farce, I don't exactly feel like I need bother. But I might be blaming you for another persons atrocious manners, it was a very long time ago. I remember someone with bang or something in their name
[08:34] <ikonia> truepurple: Please, please, when using the ubuntu channels, can you please decide where you think the best channel to ask a question is and then ask it - and wait for a response (especially in quite channels)
[08:34] <truepurple> ah there it is in the list, bazhan g, I think that was the worst offender
[08:34] <ikonia> leave it around 15 minutes or so before deciding to try to find another channel that may be a second option
[08:34] <ikonia> truepurple: is that clear/acceptable ?
[08:35] <truepurple> What if I ask multiple times?
[08:35] <truepurple> Do I have to wait 15 minutes from the last time?
[08:35] <ikonia> it would be nice yes
[08:35] <ikonia> 15 minutes is a nice average time to give people chance to see your question and respond
[08:35] <ikonia> !guidelines | truepurple
[08:35] <ikonia> it's mentioned in this link
[08:35] <ikonia> (if that helps)
[08:36] <truepurple> ikonia, I would like you to know that it was 15 minutes before with that issue that happened some months ago
[08:36] <ikonia> I'm not searching months of logs
[08:36] <ikonia> I'm just dealing with you here and now to be clear
[08:36] <truepurple> I could find the time
[08:36] <ikonia> (so there is no future confusion)
[08:36] <ikonia> the logs are public, you're welcome to find it if you feel it's that important
[08:36] <ikonia> I just want to make the guidelines clear and remove the ban so you can use the channel
[08:37] <ikonia> truepurple: if you're comfortable with the info in the guidelines document and feel you can abide by it, that would be hopefully no more cause for issue
[08:37] <truepurple> ikonia, the point is, you spoke of previous incidents, and the lot of you like to talk like I am in the habit of behaving badly. So when there is clearly incorrect history being remembered by people, I want that fixed
[08:38] <ikonia> truepurple: the logs are public, the incidents you have had are recorded in our ban tracking tool,
[08:38] <truepurple> Also, I would point out that the rule in that link is based on the incorrect statement of each channel having its own specialization.
[08:38] <ikonia> truepurple: if you're comfortable with the guidelines, I'm happy to remove the ban if you're happy to abide by them
[08:39] <ikonia> truepurple: I really don't want to get into a discussion with you
[08:39] <truepurple> I will wait 15 minutes,
[08:39] <truepurple> But you should, you accused me
[08:39] <truepurple> The logs ARE public
[08:39] <ikonia> you're happy with whole content of those guidlines ?
[08:39] <truepurple> So please check them, and then apologize for your false accusation
[08:40] <ikonia> truepurple:  I just want to deal with this issue, I really don't want to get into a discussion with you
[08:40] <ikonia> can we please focus on if you are happy with the guidlines in that document ?
[08:40] <ikonia> then we can put an end to this
[08:40] <truepurple> Refusal to address your own fopaw (how ever its spelled) cancels out much of your manner like words
[08:41] <truepurple> but I will follow your ruling, it's not like I have another choice
[08:41] <ikonia> truepurple: ok, I'm going to leave this discussion now,
[08:41] <ikonia> I've tried to be as clear as possible but can't be bothered wasting any more time with your arguments
[08:41] <truepurple> No, just to apologize
[08:41] <truepurple> No arguements
[08:41] <ikonia> good bye
[08:42] <truepurple> just check the facts and apologize for falsely accusing me is all I ask
[08:42] <truepurple> Why is that so hard for you?
[08:42] <ikonia> 1.) we've been through this before with multiple operators so I don't want to do this whole thing again - which is why I didn't want to deal with you in the first place
[08:42] <truepurple> No, never really been through anything
[08:42] <ikonia> 2.) I just want to deal with this one issue so you can use the channel, but you just want to argue about everything
[08:42] <ikonia> I cannot be bothered wasting any more time with you
[08:42] <truepurple> I was given crap, but noone bothered to listen to me, check facts, or apologize
[08:43] <ikonia> I am trying to get a resolution quickly so you can use the channel,
[08:43] <truepurple> You waste alot of time, avoiding something that takes very little time
[08:43] <ikonia> I'm not avoiding anything - I don't want to get into another drawn out time wasting discussion, I just wanted to resolve this issue/request so you could use the channel again
[08:43] <truepurple> I dont want to either
[08:44] <truepurple> I just want you to check facts and apologize for falsely accusing me.
[08:44] <ikonia> great, so iof you are happy with the rules in the document, I'll remove the ban
[08:44] <ikonia> I give in
[08:44] <truepurple> Its in the timestamp, black and white
[08:44] <ikonia> good bye
[08:44] <truepurple> No room for interpretation or anything
[08:45] <truepurple> You guys give me flack about history that never happened, why can't you apologize even once when you clearly got something wrong?
[08:47] <truepurple> ikonia, So you aren't going to remove the ban because I remain here persisting in asking for a well deserved apology?
[08:47] <truepurple> Even though I consented to following your ruling?
[08:48] <truepurple> I would point out that I was willing to do so before, if someone had given me one to follow in the first place.
[08:52] <elky> So let me get a grasp of this. You cross-posted a question (asked in #ubuntu and #ubuntu-beginners less than 3 minutes apart), then denied asking in multiple channels when told to stop cross-posting?
[08:53] <truepurple> No elky
[08:54] <truepurple> I was told I should know not to do it, as I was "warned last time not to", last time that happened it was 15 minutes apart
[08:55] <elky> Then why did you make it closer, rather than further apart?
[08:55] <truepurple> And from what I recall, bazhang was the one that was nastiest to me during this whole time, quite some vague lecture I got
[08:56] <truepurple> elky, Last time, I asked how much time they wanted the times to be apart, I was refused a answer, I was given meaningless shit that was a cross between 'it's obvious', and the question being completely ignored
[08:57] <truepurple> Considering that I was not given the answer, combined with the great mistreatment I got, plus how I have been punished for much more obscure reasons, I figured it didn't really matter what I did, I would be punished or not regardless on the whims of OPS and their powers
[08:58] <truepurple> So I decided not to worry about it
[08:58] <elky> Do you understand why cross-posting is discouraged?
[08:58] <truepurple> I get it in principle, but in practice its absurd to make a rule against it, but I am fine with following rules anyway
[08:58] <truepurple> That is not the issue
[08:59] <elky> then if you understand the principle, why did you make it worse?
[08:59] <truepurple> Make what worse?
[08:59] <elky> make the times closer together, so much more likely for the two potential conversations to interfere with each other unknowingly.
[09:00] <truepurple> If I was going to be punished for having times 15 minutes apart, I could be punished for having them hours apart, or days, or weeks, especially if I go by the crap words I was given last time
[09:01] <truepurple> and thats BS that conversations would interfere with each other, especially if noones replying in the first place
[09:01] <elky> that's strawman logic, and isn't going to help anything, certainly not you
[09:01] <truepurple> If that was the concern, you could have it so that if you get replies in both channels, you just drop one of the conversations
[09:02] <truepurple> That isn't hard or complicated, not that it makes sense to me that two conversations in two channels would interfere with each other, at worst there is some wasted effort because of duplication
[09:03] <elky> if two people are telling one person to try things at the same time, then the two sets of instructions may interfere
[09:03] <truepurple> Again, I am willing to follow the rules, that is not the issue, elky, what are you calling stawman?
[09:04] <truepurple> elky, if you are not very bright and following two separate lists of instructions at the same time, it would interfere with the fix, but the only one who would suffer from that would be you
[09:04] <elky> a strawman argument is a thing. it's like where politicians say "we can't possibly do blah because of <insert unlikely thing here>". I think it highly unlikely that hours, days or weeks would encompass single conversations
[09:05] <truepurple> I know what a strawman argument is
[09:05] <elky> truepurple, we don't hand out iq tests, we can't prejudge who to prevent tying themselves in knots. we must assume everyone is of equal risk.
[09:05] <truepurple> But 15 minutes is a long time to wait as it is with no reply before going to another channel, I was punished anyway and given meaningless lectures and insults, but no timelines
[09:06] <truepurple> elky, if you are trying to prevent someone from doing something that hurts them, you give them advice, not rulings and punishment
[09:06] <truepurple> OPS are there to protect the channel, not people from themselves
[09:06] <elky> truepurple, you _were_ asked
[09:07] <elky> actually, we are here to prevent bad advice, hence protect people from themselves
[09:07] <truepurple> Asked what?
[09:07] <elky> truepurple, to stop
[09:07] <elky> today. twice.
[09:07] <truepurple> So if I wanted to smash my computer, and spoke of it, you would ban me if I didn't promise not to do it?
[09:08] <truepurple> elky, twice? There is only one incident
[09:08] <elky> that's also a strawman argument.
[09:08] <elky> stopping you from ircing isn't going to stop the mallet. stopping you from using 2 helpers is going to stop you from a. wasting the time of one of them, and b. mixing up instructions
[09:09] <truepurple> elky, no it isn't. Your statement has no bounds, your powers would be absurd if you could punish people from doing things that might POSSIBLY(or very likely not at all) hurt themselves
[09:09] <truepurple> Just like being punished for 15 minutes apart cross talk and being given no time ruling back then had no bounds, so it could just as well have been hours or days
[09:10] <elky> 15 minutes is much different from an hour in terms of conversations. most conversations don't go for an hour. many go for 15 minutes
[09:11] <truepurple> Its not a false argument that distracts from the real issue, its a real argument with a bit of hyperbole that expresses the boundless nature of the argument
[09:11] <truepurple> elky, it was 15 minutes of silence from the moment I asked, to not saying another word and asking in ubuntu 15 minutes later
[09:12] <truepurple> 15 minutes as more then enough time for someone to see my words and respond if there was someone there
[09:12] <truepurple> Not saying another word, or seeing another word in the channel
[09:13] <elky> you're getting awfully hung up on "last time", which you haven't pointed to the public logs for, and which I am not going to spend hours digging for
[09:13] <elky> how about we discuss *this* time?
[09:14] <truepurple> I mentioned this back then, and I asked how much time is reasonable. So to have ikonia beat me over the head about that back then is absurd, its a false accusation. That false accusation is the real issue here
[09:15] <truepurple> Persisting in asking for a apology for being falsely accused from ikonia is the reason I have yet to be unbanned from ubuntu, so that is *this* time.
[09:15] <elky> truepurple, that's not why you're not unbanned yet. you're not unbanned yet because you're dragging this out
[09:15] <truepurple> Its not the first time a OPS has vaguely falsely accused me, but this time the proof that it is false is so definite and unquestionable
[09:16] <truepurple> elky, dragging this out=persisting in asking for that apology
[09:16] <truepurple> elky, there is no other way I am "dragging this out" then that
[09:16] <elky> i'm confused as to what you're wanting an apology for precisely? For being reminded that this discussion was had before?
[09:17] <truepurple> But apparently the idea of actually apologizing to me is so repugnant to ikonia that s/he can't see to unban me for a matter semi-unrelated to the apology
[09:17] <truepurple> elky, for being falsely accused
[09:18] <elky> falsely accused of what?
[09:18] <truepurple>  ikonia of cross channeling, of having gone over this before with you guys
[09:19] <truepurple> The former is debatable, if you call 15 minutes of silence between inquires cross channeling, then maybe you could say that was correct, but I find that laughable and ikonia him/her self said 15 minute spacing was fine
[09:19] <elky> so you're saying you did not, today, ask in 2 channels 3 minutes apart?
[09:19] <elky> Someone found logs for me, it was 10 minutes apart last time.
[09:19] <truepurple> I said, ikonia  accused me of doing this and having gone over it before, 'the previous time'
[09:20] <elky> You yourself are referring to the last time this was discussed. You want an apology for him referring to the same conversation you've been referring to?
[09:20] <elky> Or, is it that you want an apology for being uncertain after the last discussion?
[09:20] <elky> We're sorry that it was ambigious to you last time. Really.
[09:21] <elky> Now, lets make it clearer this time?
[09:21] <truepurple> I am referring to the last time this was discussed because ikonia  did
[09:21] <elky> please read my last 4 lines before continuing.
[09:21] <truepurple> And when ikonia referred to that last time, it was falsely and insulting to me
[09:22] <truepurple> "stop cross posting in ubuntu channels, you've been warned/kicked/banned for this in the past"
[09:23] <elky> you were warned last time, yes?
[09:24] <truepurple> Warned that anything less then 15 minutes apart was forbidden? No
[09:24] <truepurple> And I was punished last time when it was 15 minutes apart
[09:24] <elky> We're sorry that it was ambigious to you last time, then.
[09:24] <truepurple> So its not like any kind of clear signal was sent
[09:26] <truepurple> Not just ambiguous, bazhang was downright mean/rude. So it perturbs me deeply to have ikonia refer to that as a previous corrective measure against me
[09:27] <truepurple> I mean bazhang really tore into my from what I recall, yet avoided saying anything meaningful, and yet still being punished for it now like it was my fault
[09:30] <elky> Bazhang is very blunt when he discusses things. Many people are. Some people find it rude. If you can tell me any precise "mean" thing he said, I'll have a talk to him about it.
[09:30] <elky> Now, can we discuss today's issue, please?
[09:30] <truepurple> elky, I was not given any meaningful instructions on this before, so would it really be asking so much for ikonia to say 'Sorry, my mistake'?
[09:30] <truepurple> what is there to discuss?
[09:30] <elky> truepurple, but last time you *were* told that 10 minutes (not 15) was "too soon", yes?
[09:30] <truepurple> No, I am blunt, bazhang was rude
[09:30] <truepurple> I am not splitting hairs, bazhang was the opposite of blunt
[09:31] <truepurple> blunt is getting straight to the heart of things without pretense, bazhang did not do anything like that
[09:31] <elky> without being pointed to anything specific, all i can do is talk to him with no meaningful input
[09:31] <truepurple> elky, no time line was given
[09:32] <elky> truepurple, how can no timeline have been given, 10 minutes was established by the actual events that happened right then
[09:32] <truepurple> elky, I could go into my emails, find the old emails were I sent out appeals on the matter, the time and date were there, and if the system still holds the material, I could show you the specifics
[09:32] <truepurple> elky, what established 10 minutes?
[09:32] <elky> the 10 minutes you're saying you got told off for
[09:34] <truepurple> elky, it was 15, and the way it was put to me, any amount of *undefined* cross talk was forbidden
[09:34] <truepurple> So it could have been hours or more from the way it was said
[09:35] <truepurple> There was alot of "know what you did, we aren't going to talk about this" type stuff, at least that was the most polite part of the "conversation"
[09:35] <elky> 07:41 < truepurple> Making a start up disk on a usb flash, every 5 minutes or 07:31 < truepurple> Making a start up disk on a usb flash, every 5 minutes or
[09:35] <elky> that's 10 minutes.
[09:36] <elky> ANyway, you were told that the 10 minutes was too soon, yes?
[09:36] <truepurple> No
[09:36] <elky> You were told that 10 minutes was cross posting?
[09:36] <truepurple> I was told something like 'no cross talk will be allowed', actually at first it was, you broke some rule, figure out which one, well nearly anyway
[09:36] <truepurple> it was not put that clearly
[09:37] <elky> it was possibly asking what you thought you had done. we do that often to see if people know
[09:38] <truepurple> elky, more like it was treated as though it was obvious, I was repeatedly sent the same stupid links, not just one but several, like a easter egg to find the right one in question
[09:38] <elky> the guidelines?
[09:39] <elky> The code of conduct?
[09:39] <truepurple> for freenode, for ubuntu, for whatever else
[09:39] <truepurple> there was at least 3 I think
[09:39] <truepurple> and freenode has no such rules against cross talk
[09:40] <truepurple> There were other complaints against me from what I recall, not that I would be told, if I was too stupid to see something so obvious, s/he/they would not waste their time explaining it to me, (man, that sounds like a girlfriend)
[09:41] <elky> it does have other rules though, and we like to make sure people have been given an opportunity to see the documents that make up the terms of service for freenode and our channels before discussions
[09:41] <elky> (or a boyfriend)
[09:41] <truepurple> elky, again, it wasn't like that, no explanation was ever given, it wasn't a opportunity, it was a "end of discussion" type thing
[09:42] <elky> I've already said i'll discuss the bluntness with him. Can we move back to today's issue?
[09:42] <truepurple> With many of you guys, that's how it feels, all discussions end before they even begin, so any amount of discussion at all is just wasting precious ops time
[09:43] <elky> TOday you posted 3 minutes apart in 2 channels, yes?
[09:43] <truepurple> You are the first OPS i have encountered of ubuntus that actually was willing to discuss stuff
[09:43] <truepurple> Something like that yeah, and I said I would obey the 15 minute ruling, even though I don't agree with it
[09:43] <elky> (trivia: it's actually Op, short for Operator)
[09:44] <elky> You said that when?
[09:44] <truepurple> And saying that was enough for the ban to be lifted
 truepurple: if you're comfortable with the guidelines, I'm happy to remove the ban if you're happy to abide by them
 truepurple: I really don't want to get into a discussion with you
 I will wait 15 minutes,
 But you should, you accused me
 The logs ARE public
 you're happy with whole content of those guidlines ?
 So please check them, and then apologize for your false accusation
[09:44] <truepurple> * bazhang_ is now known as bazhang
 truepurple:  I just want to deal with this issue, I really don't want to get into a discussion with you
 can we please focus on if you are happy with the guidlines in that document ?
 then we can put an end to this
 Refusal to address your own fopaw (how ever its spelled) cancels out much of your manner like words
 but I will follow your ruling, it's not like I have another choice
[09:45] <truepurple> I said it multiple times
[09:45] <elky> (trivia 2: fauxpas, it's a french word)
[09:45] <truepurple> and ikonia said she would lift the ban, but then did not, because I persisted in my request for the apology
[09:45] <elky> ikonia is a he.
[09:45] <elky> i am a she.
[09:45] <truepurple> I am making a logical assumption on that part
[09:46] <truepurple> Ok, I just refer to people as female unless I know otherwise
[09:46] <truepurple> Its easier that way
[09:46] <truepurple> I tried the / thing before, but I got tired of it
[09:47] <elky> there's actually invented words for ambiguous gender, but most people don't know them
[09:47] <elky> she/he/zie. his/her/zir
[09:47] <truepurple> So that brings us up to current, I want a apology, ikonia is refusing to give it, and apparently not unbanning me because I continue to ask for it
[09:47] <truepurple> Really? True english words?
[09:47] <elky> Not really, most people don't know them, they're not in dictionaries
[09:48] <truepurple> Thats super interesting, but I think your understating how few people would actually know that
[09:48] <elky> but social justice circles use them a lot for queer/trans/intersex folk
[09:48] <elky> most people would figure it out by context actually
[09:49] <elky> they read/sound similiar enough to the male/female versions that many assume typos/ poor english
[09:49] <elky> but, not widely known as such.
[09:49] <truepurple> Or get completely thrown by the peculiarity of it.
[09:49] <truepurple> What about him/her?
[09:49] <truepurple> zir?
[09:49] <elky> zir
[09:50] <elky> used as it/they ze/zir
[09:50] <truepurple> Her/hers/him/his, two referring to the individual and the other two being possessives, yet using the same term
[09:50] <elky> anyway, what precisely is ikonia apologising for, though? Saying that a discussion had happened? Assuming that you understood the discussion last time?
[09:50] <elky> we've established the discussion *happened*
[09:51] <truepurple> For talking as though I had already done something that clearly broke the rules and I had clearly gotten my instructions as to what to do, and here I was yet doing it again
[09:52] <truepurple> Please don't see this just in isolation, OPS around here love to talk about the pasts they imagine
[09:52] <truepurple> er OP
[09:52] <truepurple> or op
[09:52] <ikonia> truepurple: I am sorry for assuming you understood that cross-posting was unacceptable bellow 15 minutes
[09:53] <truepurple> Thankyou, please understand though, it wasn't about you assuming my knowledge, but your implying my repeat offender status like I was someone to repeatedly ignore instructions
[09:54] <truepurple> elky, may I please speak to you more about the zir stuff in PM?
[09:54] <truepurple> That assumption/statement reflected negatively upon me like a insult, and was done in a public channel
[09:55] <truepurple> ikonia,
[09:55] <elky> truepurple, he understands that it might have seemed like an implication, and that's part of the apology too. Can we move on?
[09:55] <truepurple> That is fine, I just wanted to be sure that ik understood that part of it, but I am willing to take it like that, even though it does feel only partial
[09:56] <truepurple> The biggest reason I ask for apologizes is not for the apology itself as much as the recognition of offense to avoid repetition
[09:57] <truepurple> Also, if history is misremembered, I may suffer for that
[09:58] <elky> If that's the case, i should beg of you an apology?
[09:58] <truepurple> how so?
[09:58] <elky> that was the wrong key, i think :P
[09:59] <elky> To know you won't repeat it ;)
[09:59] <truepurple> I did something that offended you?
[09:59] <elky> to know you won't repeat cross posting now that we've had this discussion
[09:59] <truepurple> I said I would follow your rules, I would append that by saying I can be forgetful, and may press things if I am feeling that the whole thing is particularly absurd and that I can get away with it, just me being honest.
[10:00] <truepurple> I mean not right now, distant future from time to time, perhaps, its not a actual plan, just a possibility
[10:00] <truepurple> But I will give the effort to follow this ruling
[10:01] <elky> So you apologise for having performed the action of cross-posting between channels less than 15 minutes apart?
[10:02] <elky> I'm only asking because you use it as logic for us, so surely it works for you as well?
[10:03] <truepurple> I said I would follow the ruling, but I was not given such a distinct ruling before, so I can't apologize for disobeying a order not given
[10:03] <elky> i'm not asking you to apologise for not remembering/understanding. I'm asking if you apologise for what you did do today
[10:03] <truepurple> And note that I say ruling, since the actual rule is very open for interpretation.
[10:04] <truepurple> You want me to apologize for disobeying a ruling before it was given?
[10:04] <elky> most rules are. that's why we have courts, not statisticians, making judgements
[10:04] <truepurple> I know
[10:04] <elky> well yes. We didn't know you didn't understand, and we've apologised for not knowing
[10:05] <truepurple> ikonia, accused me of a past that did not happen. If you misremember something, that is your own error, if you intentionally misrepresent the past, that is just dishonest.
[10:06] <truepurple> Either way, not a valid comparison
[10:07] <elky> the apology i'm asking for has absolutely nothing to do with last time. i'm speaking as though this is the first time you've come here for cross posting
[10:07] <elky> do you apologise for having made the mistake, today, of posting in 2 channels very quickly
[10:07] <truepurple> I know the social edicute(I know I am misspelling this) is to trade apologize, but the weight of common sense seems to favor me.
[10:08] <truepurple> Anyway, iks was a half apology at best, yet I still accepted it
[10:09] <elky> His apology was not half, he apologised for what he did. He can't apologise for your feeling.
[10:09] <truepurple> elky, what should matter most it seems is my promise to try to avoid doing so in the future, if I do so anyway, then a apology from me makes sense
[10:09] <truepurple> No, he apologized for half of what he did, the part that really didn't matter as much
[10:10] <elky> it was the exact same thing, just interpreted differently. I'm looking from the outside and making that judgement,  in honesty
[10:10] <truepurple> He apologized for assuming knowledge on my part, but it was the insulting public accusation of previous misbehavior that I really wanted the apology gfor
[10:11] <elky> The previous event did happen, he can't apologise that from history. That's not how the world works
[10:11] <truepurple> I would not be so persistent in asking for a apology if it were simply the assumption of knowledge, I probably wouldn't have bothered to ask for it at all in that case
[10:11] <truepurple> The event did happen, but not how ikonia implied.
[10:13] <elky> That's because he misunderstood. He's apologised for having understood the event as he understood it.
[10:13] <truepurple> You know, the way you chop things up like this, it makes the apology less and less fulfilling for me :(
[10:14] <topyli> wow
[10:14] <truepurple> And that is not what the apology was for anyway
[10:14] <elky> It shoudn't. It should make it mean more because he didn't apologise for things he cannot apologise for.
[10:14] <topyli> is the actual ban resolved yet? truepurple, are you interested in resolving it if it isn't
[10:15] <topyli> if not, i don't know what's going on anymore. this is the simplest of bans, taking the longest time ever to resolve
[10:15] <elky> topyli, I'm waiting to hear if truepurple is sorry for having done the action that was done today, and if zie is, I'm happy to lift the ban.
[10:15] <truepurple> topyli, I thought it was, but it seems elky wants a return apology for me not obeying a ruling before it was given (a absurd concept to me) when the apology for ik was partial and rather sad to begin with anyway
[10:16] <elky> truepurple, if I were to tread on your toes, I imagine you'd be wanting an apology despite me not having known your toes were there, yes?
[10:17] <topyli> ah ok. go on then if that's so entertaining. the logs will still fit in the servers i'm sure
[10:17] <elky> Think of this as being like that.
[10:18] <truepurple> ikonia said/implied (implied because it was vague and some inferring is required) that there was already a situation were I did something that clearly broke the rules and was given instructions before, and there I was ignoring them.
[10:18] <elky> and he apologised for thinking you had understood the rest is implied by that. really. i promise
[10:18] <truepurple> He referred to a past having happened, if he has no knowledge of the incident, its a false accusation, if he does have knowledge of the incident, it is a false accusation, either way...
[10:19] <truepurple> So its not just not knowing
[10:19] <truepurple>  slash/ assuming knowledge on my part, which was all I got an apology for
[10:20] <elky> you're trying to break metaphysical boundaries of implied logic. This really isn't the place and it's stopping me from feeling confident to unban you
[10:21] <elky> All I want is you to apologise for having done the specific action of posting the same question in 2 of our channels 3 minutes apart.
[10:21] <truepurple> elky, ok then, lets put it this way, iks comments had all the hangings and implications of a insult, without the detail, but there was enough detail to know what it was about, if you disagree, that only makes it worse.
[10:22] <truepurple> If there was not enough detail to know what iks comments were about, yet ik spoke them in such a derogatory way anyway in a public channel, that is cause for a apology
[10:23] <elky> truepurple, I am very close to giving up on this conversation if you cannot simply apologise for what did factually happen in that timeframe of 3 minutes earlier today. I will not lift the ban unless you do
[10:23] <truepurple> Actually, it feels like you want a apology from me, just as a way to say the apology from Ik was unnecessary in the first place. Or in other words, elky, it seems like you are actively trying to erase his apology
[10:24] <truepurple> I promised multiple times to try and obey the ruling, to expect a apology from me for obeying a ruling before it was given is beyond absurd, can you not see that?
[10:25] <truepurple> The apology was for assuming knowledge on my part, yet you want a apology for not knowing or something.
[10:25] <elky> No, I want an apology for the specific action of crossposting. The same as I'd trod on toes that I was not aware of.
[10:26] <elky> same as if*
[10:27] <truepurple> If I step on toes, I hurt someone, noone got hurt by my cross posting, noone had responded in the other channel
[10:28] <truepurple> Also. it is reasonable to watch out for peoples feet, after how I was treated, I find it unreasonable for me to worry about some open ended cross channel thing.
[10:29] <truepurple> Now that i have the ruling, it is reasonable
[10:29] <truepurple> (the respecting the ruling, not so much the ruling)
[10:30] <truepurple> elky,
[10:31] <elky> The ban won't be lifted until you apologise for cross posting. You yourself said an apology is recognition that the same thing shouldn't be repeated.
[10:31] <elky> I don't how a bodycount should matter whether or not recognition is valid.
[10:32] <elky> It is not unreasonable to expect of you the same standard of recognition as you uphold on others.
[10:32] <elky> Your aversion from the recognising is what is troubling me.
[10:32] <truepurple> The promise that I would respect the ruling lets you know it wont be repeated, the apology implies my committing a moral wrong I don't believe I did.
[10:33] <truepurple> What Ik did was emotional hurt, the same can not be said for disobeying a ruling before given
[10:33] <elky> No, an apology is a commitment to not do the same thing in the future. You yourself said as much.
[10:34] <elky> I want your committment in the same currency as you wanted ours.
[10:34] <truepurple> My commitment to not do it in the future, is my commitment to not do it in the future, if the apology implies nothing more, its at best redundant, in case, why do you persist in asking for it?
[10:35] <elky> Because your promise to follow the rules was accompanied by saying you forget things. On the same line, even.
[10:36] <truepurple> I can apologize to myself for my honesty with you, I shall avoid such blunt honesty in the future, but if I do, the apology will mean even less
[10:37] <elky> How about a compromise then. If you apologise in that other channel you're currently occupying, it won't be on the logs, but I will have seen it and would be assured by it.
[10:38] <truepurple> which channel? and all the channels are logged
[10:39] <elky> No, -irc-council is not logged
[10:41] <truepurple> Why do you want this apology, you think a apology is better assurance then a promise of not doing it? That makes no sense, and implies that all the stuff I suspected before, about it being to erase iks promise and stuff is true.
[10:42] <elky> Because i would like assurance in the same currency as you got your assurance from us. That way I can feel confident to unban you.
[10:42] <truepurple> Just saying that reduced the apology
[10:42] <truepurple> Everything you have said since suggests that what I want the apology for, isn't real.
[10:43] <truepurple> And you want a apology from me, it seems, to further say it was stupid of me to want it from Ik.
[10:43] <elky> What did you want the apology for, if not assurance of endeavour to not repeat the mistake?
[10:44] <truepurple> I wanted acknowledgement that wrong was done in the first place, to recognize that it happened is what helps prevent it from happening in the future.
[10:44] <truepurple> I am willing to admit I asked about something in one channel, then 3 or so minutes latter asked in another.
[10:44] <elky> Mt everest was the tallest mountain before it was discovered. Cross posting was wrong before you discovered it to be so.
[10:45] <elky> Ok. Lets work with that. Do you regret having done that thing you just described?
[10:46] <truepurple> Regret goes to guilt, you think it was even slightly immoral or otherwise "wrong" of me to disobey a order BEFORE it was given?
[10:47] <elky> This isn't about orders at all.
[10:47] <truepurple> And the action itself, I feel no guilt for, as OP you try and compel actions, but to expect to compel peoples hearts to feel guilt about disobeying a rule is a bit much
[10:47] <elky> I'm not wanting you to apologise for disobeying. I'm asking if you are willing to regret what you actually did.
[10:48] <truepurple> What is it about? My issue was being insulted and shamed in a public channel, what is yours?
[10:48] <truepurple> That doesn't even make sense
[10:48] <truepurple> Insulted and shamed, in a false bases
[10:48] <elky> The issue now is that you're maintaining that you did nothing wrong.
[10:49] <truepurple> It isn't wrong till I am disobeying, and it isn't disobeying till I get instructions (that aren't absurdly vague and open ended and covered with mistreatment) not to do it
[10:50] <elky> That attitude is a risk we cannot take in a busy channel.
[10:51] <truepurple> What attitude? What part of that logic do you disagree with?
[10:51] <elky> The part where everything is ok until specifically and explicitly denounced.
[10:52] <truepurple> I didn't say everything
[10:52] <truepurple> But let me ask you this, if something doesn't hurt anyone, and you aren't disobeying rulings etc. is it wrong?
[10:53] <elky> Yes. Illegal drug use is a typical example of a victimless crime.
[10:53] <truepurple> If you walked into the post office, and there was a rule against wearing shoes in the post office, should you apologize for wearing shoes in the post office before you were told not to and took them off?
[10:54] <truepurple> Posting in two different channels is in no way comparable in degree or any other way to illegal drugs... of all the absurd things you could have said...
[10:54] <truepurple> Let me point out that illegal drugs DO hurt people, and this is no secret
[10:54] <elky> yes, you should apologise. And i'd hope so if you ever enter a muslim temple with shoes, for example.
[10:55] <truepurple> Where as posting in another channel after 3 minutes of silence hurts noone
[10:55] <elky> Most illegal drugs used as intended are actually medications
[10:55] <truepurple> elky, so you would apologize for wearing shoes in the post office before you were told it was against the rules?
[10:55] <elky> Yes, absolutely.
[10:56] <elky> The same as I apologise when I push my commits to the wrong branch because I didn't know otherwise.
[10:56] <truepurple> Yeah, that is what alot of the pot users would say.
[10:58] <truepurple> elky, your definition of apology dilutes its meaning considerably, if I could get a full apology from ikonia, I will give the apology you want
[10:59] <truepurple> Otherwise it makes iks apology just too weak and half hearted
[10:59] <elky> ikonia has gone for the day unfortunately
[10:59] <elky> So it's up to you if you want this ban lifted.
[11:00] <truepurple> The things you say you want that apology for, are accomplished by my promise, that the promise is not accepted can only mean you want more from the apology then what you are admitting to
[11:01] <truepurple> The promise, and my acknowledgement of the event.
[11:02] <truepurple> Anyway, if you really want something off the record, it would be in PM, not IRC council channel
[11:02] <elky> I can however apologise for myself that I was unaware that discussions here previously had insulted you and did not leave you with sufficient understanding. I apologise that your dealings with bazhang were unhelpful and unkind and that I didn't notice.
[11:03] <truepurple> But the point is to recognize that it did happen
[11:03] <truepurple> so it doesn't happen again
[11:03] <elky> Yes. I apologised that those things happened.
[11:03] <truepurple> I recognize that I talked in two different channels, so that is not a reason for the apology you want
[11:04] <truepurple> but you didn't do them
[11:04] <elky> I can apologise for not knowing.
[11:04] <elky> The same as you can.
[11:05] <truepurple> But its not about not knowing, its about being thoughtless and doing something that could clearly hurt someone at best.
[11:05] <truepurple> That is what ik did
[11:05] <truepurple> Apology implies hurt, how did I hurt you, how did I hurt Ik, how did I hurt anyone?
[11:06] <truepurple> At worst I annoy with my persistence in the matter
[11:06] <elky> You're hurting me right now by not offering me the assurance I need to lift your ban.
[11:06] <truepurple> Your really reaching there with your effort to reflect my words back on me
[11:07] <elky> You annoyed people with the cross posting.
[11:07] <truepurple> I did not insult you in a public channel
[11:07] <truepurple> Only those who worry about things that don't really matter
[11:07] <elky> You compared me to marijuana users.
[11:07] <truepurple> Ik and a few other OPS were bothered, I bet I can safely say noone else was
[11:07] <elky> I find that quite insulting considering I'm a victim of violence from a drug addict
[11:08] <truepurple> Most others don't even know it happened
[11:08] <truepurple> I did not compare you to a marijauna user, YOU brought up illegal drugs
[11:08] <truepurple> And even after that, I did not do anything like that
[11:09] <truepurple> I questioned the concept of illegal drugs for "medicinal use", when you brought it up, I did not compare you to anything
[11:09] <elky> I don't see why me mentioning illegal drugs requires you to say that something I said is what drug users say
[11:10] <elky> oh, you don't know the history of heroin, cocaine, etc?
[11:10] <elky> It's quite interesting.
[11:10] <truepurple> Not entirely, no, what did I say that was anything like that in your opinion?
[11:10] <truepurple> What are you speaking of?
 Yeah, that is what alot of the pot users would say.
[11:12] <truepurple> medicinal use is, a excuse, I have seen plenty of stories on the news showing lots of evidence showing lots of them make up fake or exaggerated medical needs to really use it for recreation. But to say I was calling you a pot user by that is more then stretching things
[11:13] <elky> truepurple, heroin and cocaine were legit medicines in the 20s/30s, for things unrelated to what they're used for now
[11:13] <truepurple> What of it?
[11:13] <truepurple> Coa cola use to have cocain in it
[11:14] <elky> yup, to make it addictive
[11:14] <truepurple> So not even a medicine
[11:14] <truepurple> Well I am sure they would say, like tobacoo companies do, "its for the taste"
[11:14] <truepurple> I mean, would say back then
[11:14] <truepurple> And the point of that is?
[11:14] <popey> BONG! Congratulations! You've made it to 3 hours of near-pointless drivel! You win a prize!
[11:15] <knome> popey, "bong" ?:P
[11:15] <truepurple> The Internets?!
[11:15] <Myrtti> can we fast forward to the part where everyone is sorry, wipe their eyes and noses and move on?
[11:15] <bazhang> popey, heh
[11:15] <popey> Now, I don't know about anyone else, but this is a massive waste of everyones time. Please stop.
[11:15] <truepurple> I think that is meant to be a oriental cymbal sound
[11:15] <truepurple> One of those mammoth ones
[11:15] <knome> agreed with popey.
[11:16] <truepurple> Fine, I agreed to follow the ruling i was given, please unban me!
[11:16] <popey> truepurple: You can't drag me into a rabbit-warren conversation about what style of gong or cymbal it may or may not have been!
[11:16] <truepurple> gong, that was the word I was looking for
[11:17] <truepurple> rabbit-warren?
[11:17] <popey> Stop.
[11:17] <truepurple> ?
[11:17] <popey> Stop trying to divert the already lengthy conversation about a trivial misdemeanour into some other direction.
[11:17] <truepurple> ah
[11:17] <elky> truepurple, you've been told explicitly the criteria for the unban.
[11:18] <elky> It's one we expect of everyone who has, as popey put it, "a trivial misdemeanour"
[11:18] <elky> And that is an apology.
[11:18] <elky> We are not asking anything exceptional, but you sure have used an exceptional amount of time and effort here.
[11:18] <truepurple> Your demand is beyond unreasonable, you might as well (hyperbole for demonstration of absurdness) demand I say I like cake, or hate carrots, or promise to make my bed in a certain way
[11:19] <popey> I'd recommend you leave the channel and come back when you're in a less time-wastey mood then truepurple
[11:19] <truepurple> In some ways it is worse
[11:20] <truepurple> I don't want to waste time, I just want my ban to be lifted without absurd conditions
[11:21] <truepurple> And I am too persistent, especially when I feel I am being wronged, and lose track of time, especially as beyond the unreasonable demand and inability to see my main point, elky is enjoyable to talk to
[11:21] <popey> You don't want to waste time yet you're prepared to argue the toss for THREE HOURS about crossposting between two ubuntu channels. I honestly wish I had three hours to waste on this utter pointlessness, I really do.
[11:21] <elky> popey, and zie has been apologised to no less than 4 times.
[11:22] <elky> and still can't fathom apologising for what started all this.
[11:22] <truepurple> I didn't understand that exactly
[11:22] <popey> As I said, if you don't plan to simply apologise and move on then I'd suggest you leave.
[11:23] <elky> truepurple, do you understand that 3 hours is a long time to "persist" something at the expense of someone else's time?
[11:23] <truepurple> I will put it in simple terms- I will do your absurd apology if I get a full apology from Ik, which means another time, or you could choose to not be unreasonable and accept my promise to follow your ruling and acknowledgement that I did talk in two different channels
[11:24] <truepurple> elky, um, if you wanted to do something else, you would do it, otherwise we waste each others time equally with noone more at blame
[11:24] <popey> I'll take that as a 'no'. Please leave.
[11:24] <truepurple> elky, I want to ask you a couple questions about the zie thing, may I please PM you about it?
[11:25] <elky> After this? No.
[11:25] <truepurple> Fine
[11:25] <elky> If you apologise, yes.
[11:25] <elky> now i'm goign to tend to nature for a few minutes
[11:26] <truepurple> I don't get it, how can you be so reasonable on somethings and totally illogical and unreasoning on another, I give up. I will just have to come back latter and hope its resolved eventually some day
[11:33] <Ignacio> Hola!
[11:33] <elky> ?
[11:33] <Ignacio> Disculpa me equivoque de canal era #ubuntu-es
[11:33] <Ignacio> Disculpen
[11:33] <Ignacio> elky: Excuse me!
[11:34] <elky> Ignacio, spanish operators can be found in #ubuntu-irc :)
[11:34] <Ignacio> elki:Bye!
[11:40] <jpds> How polite.
[11:49] <elky> jpds, didn't even join -es
[15:33] <webnet> hello?
[15:33] <oCean> yeah webnet, hi
[15:34] <webnet> ok what is wrong with lmgtfy? yeah its sorta a bazinga, but it teaches people to google things before asking
[15:34] <webnet> i wouldnt use it unless the answer could be easily found in the first result of a google search
[15:34] <oCean> RaTTuS|BIG: yes, how can we help you?
[15:35] <RaTTuS|BIG> sorry - random join ... I'll be gone
[15:35] <oCean> webnet: it's like telling someone to RTFM, it's just as rude.
[15:35] <oCean> just because you do know how to use google, it does not mean that others do
[15:35] <oCean> so, in general, referring to google is not acceptable in our channels
[15:36] <oCean> lmgtfy is even worse, that's just plain rude
[15:36] <webnet> i know but in this case it was as simple as typing i686 or 64-bit into the finder. nothing complex.
[15:36] <webnet> my apologies. i didnt mean to be rude
[15:36] <oCean> it's not about the complexity of the search
[15:36] <webnet> i just get a little irritated when people cant google 1 word in the finder.
[15:37] <oCean> True, I recognize that
[15:37] <oCean> And we should try and educate others, but please just don't use the lmgtfy service for that
[15:38] <webnet> i could understand if you were trying to google something like how to run a vnc session on a remote vps running ubuntu 10.10
[15:38] <webnet> ok. i wont anymore
[15:38] <oCean> thanks
[15:38] <webnet> apologies about that. i didnt realize it came off so rude.
[15:38] <oCean> no problem, thanks for popping in here
[15:38] <webnet> :)
[15:38] <webnet> thx for letting me know about that. and i wont do it in the future
[15:39] <webnet> sorry abt that
[15:39] <oCean> Great.


[00:45] -SwissBot:#xubuntu-devel- ::xubuntu-artwork:: Bump actions/setup-python from 5.0.0 to 5.1.0 @ https://github.com/Xubuntu/xubuntu-artwork/commit/aa22a830f4ecb0271118b8658ebea2b31d194c26 (by dependabot)
[00:45] -SwissBot:#xubuntu-devel- ::xubuntu-artwork:: Merge pull request #32 from Xubuntu/dependabot/github_actions/actions… @ https://github.com/Xubuntu/xubuntu-artwork/commit/920f99265efca7958ac35d57be13096fcac04d02 (by bluesabre)
[00:49] -SwissBot:#xubuntu-devel- ::xubuntu-docs:: Bump actions/setup-python from 5.0.0 to 5.1.0 @ https://github.com/Xubuntu/xubuntu-docs/commit/49b83b0156c17ed132ede0c1fe794be1df6854d5 (by dependabot)
[00:49] -SwissBot:#xubuntu-devel- ::xubuntu-docs:: Merge pull request #45 from Xubuntu/dependabot/github_actions/actions… @ https://github.com/Xubuntu/xubuntu-docs/commit/e547573f4562a4ffb24882f783c17586b1c1d4a8 (by bluesabre)
[00:51] -SwissBot:#xubuntu-devel- ::xubuntu-default-settings:: build(deps): bump actions/setup-python from 5.0.0 to 5.1.0 (#83) @ https://github.com/Xubuntu/xubuntu-default-settings/commit/321a7c7495e4891b7182c4330f5abb15185e51b8 (by dependabot)
[02:05] -SwissBot:#xubuntu-devel- ::xubuntu-docs:: Make PDFs for GitHub Pages (LP: #2059801) @ https://github.com/Xubuntu/xubuntu-docs/commit/c651636e3dfad861c1eb6a8e03a2a2e9bb486848 (by bluesabre)