Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
P.S.
> > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > > While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel
> > > > > compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent
> > > > > post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the
> > > > > flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:21:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > This is ad hominem.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:42:47AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > At no point did I suggest that he was wrong because of who he is.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:56:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Your first line suggested exactly that.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:26:48AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It was not supposed to, and I can't see any way to read it like that.
One interpretation is that his ideas are not worthy of discussion.
That may not be what you meant, and you've also indicated that you
don't even want to discuss your own proposal so maybe it's just that
you have some hangups about communication -- but it's still a fairly
obvious interpretation.
That said, he has overstated a number of points, and I do think that is
wrong of him.
--
Raul
Reply to: