Re: changing flavor of the linux world? was: craig sanders
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:16:56AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Thomas, the social pressure here is on you to bahave better and not deserve
> to be flamed. As you can see many people agree with Craig in this issue.
afaik, thomas has whined a bit, yes... and he probably should've had a bit
of a feedback from craig. a *bit*. as in civilized. i can understand craig's
first mail (i would ... and have ... reacted the same way on unexpected
mails regarding my reputation on a few occasions), and i would've been more
on craig's side now if he'd piped down and acted civilized about it. he
didn't, so i changed my mind, and i'm sure a few other people did as well
(if they're bothering to read this thread at all ... not all that likely).
so basically, what i see now are 2-3 people supporting craig, and calling
everyone who disagree with them dipshits. i'd take a long look at the last
few mails on this subject, and see if you shouldn't rethink that last
statement.
> Your actions in publishing private email are generally considered
> unacceptable, Craig claims that your actions are illegal - but we won't find
> out unless he chooses to sue you.
if we're going to get technical here, thomas posted a mail *about* the
private mail, not the mail itself. it was fucking stupid, yes (sympathy? on
a mailing list? pffbtbtbt), but hardly illegal.
you're free to prove me wrong, tho.
> So far it seems that Craig hasn't published the email to you which he felt
> was deserving of flames. Without this evidence we have to assume that you
> were deserving of being flamed. If your email to Craig was so innoccuous
> then you should share it with us as evidence.
as mentioned earlier, yes, thomas probably deserved a bit of a talking to
for that initial mail, and maybe a bit more than just a bit (he DID put
craig's reputation and integrity into question), but NOT this much. i'm sure
craig would've gotten an apology if he'd piped himself down, but he didn't.
you didn't exactly help, either.
as for sharing the mail just to "prove his innocense" ... er, yes. hi.
"innocent until proven guilty" comes to mind. not to mention that by posting
the mail in question, he'll overstep the boundary between whining about a
flamatory mail, and actually publishing it (which may or may not be a suable
offense). if i was thomas, i'd be fucked by 6 gay men before i did anything
that stupid. nice try, tho.
--
-m
When you are having a bad day, and it seems like everybody is trying to piss
you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4
muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle.
Reply to: