Re: The Sv*n L*th*r drinking game
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:40:28PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:52:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> > > > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> > > > > > has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > *You've* driven three people out of this discussion with your personal abuse
> > > > > against them. Who is exactly is trying to berate the opposition into
> > > > > silence and then claim they hold the consensus opinion, exactly?
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
> > > > people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
> > > > then claim consensus afterwards. They may just as well procede to say
> > > > that whoever left is an unclued idiot, because they are not around to
> > > > defend themselvees anyway.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I reckon:
> > >
> > > "Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it
> > > clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts
> > > which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims
> > > based on pure speculation."
> > >
> > > (Sven Luther, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01122.html)
> >
> > And ? how is that insulting ?
>
> "you don't even both reading here anything apart from the posts which
> interests[sic] you", "half-backed claims based on pure speculation". That's
> not insulting?
I am claiming the obvious fact that i have observed. IF you wanted me to put
it in mellowy words, ok, but it still is the reality, if you like it or not.
Now, you can go ahead and and prove that this is not the case by participating
in the new clean thread in a way that makes honor to debian-legal, and thus
reach a conclusion that we will all be proud off.
> > > you can basically fall over them in any post made over the last few days by
> > > Sven.
> >
> > Well, you are only unhappy with me because i didn't leave, and dared to put a
> > finger into the misfunction of the debian-legal decision process.
>
> Prove it. Go on. Demonstrate, to at least a reasonable degree, where my
> comments have indicated that I personally am unhappy with you because you're
> still here.
you in the generic sense was meant here.
> What I *am* unhappy with is making an argument with you and being told that
> my reasoning is bogus, and being told that I've never read the licence or
> any of the discussion surrounding it, without *ANY* *BACKING* *WHATSOEVER*
> to those claims.
So prove me this is not the case, and participate in the clean thread with
constructive and well thought comments.
> And what really toasts my muffin is having it happen over and over again.
So, i could say the same the other way around.
> > > > Sven's arguments seem clear and important to me, and it behooves us to pay
> > > > attention and address them.
> > >
> > > I thought that, too, for about four days, but after the approximately
> > > eighth time Sven's "arguments" consisted of abuse, ridicule, and nothing
> > > even vaguely resembling reason, I gave up.
> >
> > So, i apologize for being upset and harsh, i clearly should have not. Still,
> > after reading mail after mail of clueless non-sense, i could sense the anger
> > build in me, and was not able to put a stop on it while replying. Again i
>
> You can write a message, then go for a walk to calm down before editing it
> and sending it. "Don't post angry". *Especially* when your purpose here
Sure, and i have started a clean thread a day after having slept over the all
of it.
> is, ostensibly, to persuade people to your point of view. Lighting up the
No, my purpose here is to reach a conclusion we can be proud of, and which i
can bring to upstream with the power of debian-legal behind me, and expect
that they don't dismiss it for obvious bullshit.
> ol' flamethrower and lightly char-grilling the other participants doesn't
> help that.
Still, i was not the first one in resorting to it. Your own posting of this
thread once i had started the clean thread was a nice touch too.
> > Well, the thread was long enough before i started to post, and what actually
> > happens is that the debian-legal mob bands together, and bashes on the DD for
> > not accepting their half-backed arguments inconditionally.
>
> Because Matthew Garrett has gotten exactly the same treatment as you, hasn't
> he? He's arguing a similar stance to you, but has always made his arguments
> rationally and, as such, has been well accepted and is listened to. You've
> taken pot-shots at nearly everyone here, and you get ridiculed. Do you see
> the difference?
Sure, but despite its dissenting voice, you claimed consensus. And he has not
over 6 year of packaging work to defend, nor a small group of DDs and
not-yet-DDs asking him what the status on this is.
Ok, enough here. Let's kill this thread, continue in the clean thread with
constructive argumentation and i will post a resume about it on monday or
tuesday.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: