On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:07:07PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > 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). The second is the relevant one, I would say. > 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. <shrug> Sure, but we also have a few nutcases who perpetually raise the same points in different subthreads until people get tired of repeating the same refutations. They're responsible for much of the perceived "debate" on -devel recently. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpKCYVtDcQP2.pgp
Description: PGP signature