> > > invis
> > > snoop sucker
> > > teleport sucker postmaster
> > > force sucker receive
> > > force sucker read x.mail
> >
> > Okay, what does this have to do with there being a bug in the
> > switch command that needs fixed?
>
> Using a bit less tunnel-minded analysis:
>
> You can see someone's email even if you're not switched into them. Is this
> a bug too?
No, it's expected behavior. You're getting dangerously close to just
arguing over words here. I have said many times I don't care what you
call it, it still needs fixed. Whether you think the player's mail
is fair game to read or not, the unexpected behavior of the swithc
command that allows you to recieve other player's mail when they're
link-dead is not at all useful.
> You're listing it as a "bug". In programming terms, "bug" and "fix" mean
> very specific things: That there is a problem, either logical or
> syntactical, in the code that causes a specific function or command to
> act in a way that it is not intended.
I have already said you can call it whatever you want. It's my assertion
that it needs to be changed. More specifically, it's not going to be
useful to anyone unless it's behavior is changed.
> What many people are trying to tell you is that as a switched person,
> you _are_ that person. You can do anything.
This is a particularly tunnel-minded way of looking at things. ;-)
> Thus, the program currently works according to specification.
I read an article about a missle that crashed due to a floating
point error. It fit the specification exactly. The problem was
the specification was flawed.
> If you have a problem with its default behaviour, individually you're
> welcome to change it. You're welcome to alert others to their POSSIBLE
> need to change it. But listing it as a bug is a misnomer that is getting
> you into a lot of miscommunciation.
I actually listed it as "bug (sort of)". Honestly, I think you're
overreacting.
> You're just all missed up.
>
> > > Switch is already logged although you could simply log everything a
> > > switched person types.
> >
> > Why are you being so difficult?
>
> It's exactly this sort of confrontational mode that is making others so
> "difficult" -- that, and you aren't getting your point across in a logical,
> reasoned fashion. You're simply expounding on the same first assertions,
> which people continue to refute to you. You then simply rephrase them
> and march right on, causing a nice and vicious circle.
I'm not expounding, I'm simply repeating. I made a very simple point,
that is, that the standard behavior of switch needs to be changed. I
stand by that point. It's very simple.
> > The above makes no sense in the current context of the discussion.
> > Please stay on topic.
>
> There's much to be said for moving forward in a discussion, something
> that I don't see this doing.
He was talking about guns and murder. It was inflamatory and irrelevant.
Until you understand what I've been saying and constantly repeating to
you this argument will never get anywhere. You're trying to argue
against things I have not asserted. We essentially agree already.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST