Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

[Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org>]

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as
> applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear,
> stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points out
> why their argument is flawed (in every discussion, not just licensing
> ones).
>
> In all the FDL debates, there has not once been a solid argument that
> it is actually acceptable, which was not immediately rebutted. If
> anybody thinks otherwise, they are invited to present their argument
> *and then defend it in the face of skilled opposition*.

    There are two ways of viewing debate: one is that debate is a
means of persuading others that your point is the correct one, the
other is that debate is a means of deriving truth (or at least
correctness).  Thus it's not "lunatic" to offer what seems to be
a plausible argument and then not continue to argue for it when a
convincing refutation is offered.

Lynn

PS.  Yes, I know the two views of debate are not orthogonal.