Re: Clarifications
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:36:15 -0400, Adam McKenna <adam-debian@flounder.net> said:
Adam> On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:23:12AM -0400, James LewisMoss
Adam> 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.
Adam> You seem a bit oversensitive to me.
Nah. I just prefer arguments/discussions where others can try not to
use loaded ways of speaking.
Adam> Anyway, if you cannot tell the difference between pointing out
Adam> inconsistencies in someone else's actions and a character
Adam> attack, then perhaps you'd be better off not taking part in
Adam> this debate (or any debate, for that matter).
"reprehensible" "double-talk" "try changing the rules to get your way"
are all loaded phrases/words that could easily have been avoided. And
am I not allowed to have a difference of opinion about what I consider
uncalled for? Guess not.
And again you cannot control your need to belittle me. Nice. I'm
perfectly capable of involving myself in arguments without calling
someone childish or making snide comments like "or any debate, for
that matter". Thanks.
Jim
--
@James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org | Blessed Be!
@ http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
Reply to: