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

Re: Clarifications

On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:23:12AM -0400, James LewisMoss wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:52:48 -0400, Adam McKenna <adam-debian@flounder.net> 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
>  >> >>>>> <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> 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).


Reply to: