[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

>>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:

    > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:36:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
    >> A more ...moral... way of changing a contract might be to
    >> let both parties to the agreement get some say in whether
    >> the change takes place.

    > See my previous mail for an analysis of the "contract"
    > aspect of this issue.

    > Your "...moral.." remark implies a degree of immorality
    > about John's proposal.  I didn't think it was immoral to
    > hold an honest opinion or submit a proposal through the
    > democratically sanctioned constitutional process.  There
    > appears to be a bit of ad hominem attack here.

    > Words mean things.  You should choose them carefully.

Words do mean things.  This message that started this discussion
included the statement 

>>>>> "John" == John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
    > Rationale:
    > 6. Most importantly: it's the right thing to do, morally.

So, disagreement means I'm morally in the wrong?  John's most
important rationale could be considered an preemptive attack on
the morals of all who don't agree with him on this issue.  I'm
curious about your opinion about the morality of the resolution.


Michael A. Miller                      mmiller@debian.org

Reply to: