James Forrester wrote:
On 21/02/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
If Adminship were not a big deal, then losing adminship would not be a big deal.
Nonsense. It's amazing (and, frankly, mystifying) to me how often this awfully poor logical conclusion comes up.
"Being a sysop is not a big thing, anyone can become one" is equivalent to saying "If you are judged unable to become a sysop, then, wow, you really must be two nuts short of a bolt".
The corollary is that if you do have your sysop bit removed, you are now being accused of, indeed, having a shortage of bolt-fasteners.
If we did hold sysops to some impossibly high standard - and, it should be pointed out, I personally see nothing wrong, and a great deal right, with holding Arbitrators and Stewards to this level, for instance - then, yes, being desysoped would not be such a big thing because people would fail the test all the time. But we don't, so it is, because they don't. See?
[Sorry for being annoyed at yet another faulty repetition of illogic.]
Yours,
It's not quite that simple. It looks like your logic is true, but then that Parker's is true too.
Your logic: Having a Nobel prize is a big deal (hardly anyone has it); not having it is not a big deal. Being able to hear is not a big deal (almost everyone can); not being able to hear is a big deal.
Parker's logic: Being able to shape your tongue in a u-shape is not a big deal; not being able to do it is not a big deal either (it doesn't matter either way). Being happy in love is a big deal; being unhappy in love is a big deal too (it matters a lot, either way).
Your logic is based on how high the standard for X is. Parker's is based on how much X matters.
David