On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:23:12AM -0400, James LewisMoss wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:52:48 -0400, Adam McKenna <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Adam> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:49:39AM -0400, James LewisMoss
> Adam> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:21:27 -0500, David Starner
> >> >>>>> <email@example.com> said:
> David> You seem to deny that this is a major change, which apparenly
> David> means you haven't been reading anything the other people
> David> say. I find your position reprehesible - instead of leading by
> David> example and removing your non-free packages from distribution
> David> and trying to convince others to do the same, you would try
> David> changing the rules to get your way. You then deny that your
> David> change would have consequences and use double-talk - "it is no
> David> more than miscellany", 'non-free packages could still use the
> David> BTS' (paraphrase) - to convince people.
> >> This is uncalled for. Attacking someone and calling them
> >> dishonest is not a good way to make anyone else actually listen to
> >> your arguments. I certainly won't read any more of your posts.
> Adam> Very nice. When someone disagrees with you in real life, do
> Adam> you just put your fingers in your ears and yell
> Adam> "lalalalalalala"?
> Give me a break. This wasn't disagreement. This was attacking the
> character of someone else. If I have a discussion with someone in
> real life and they call me stupid I tend to no longer have discussions
> with them. Why don't you read what I said?
> Ah. And thank you for calling me childish. Another person I can add
> to my "cannot have a reasonable discussion without insulting others" list.
You seem a bit oversensitive to me.
Anyway, if you cannot tell the difference between pointing out inconsistencies
in someone else's actions and a character attack, then perhaps you'd be
better off not taking part in this debate (or any debate, for that matter).