Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:11:48PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> If it's the same point you and Branden have been trying to hit for the
> last year, it's bogus, not operative. It's classic _ad hominem_.
AFAICS it is logically inconsistent to speak of "ad hominem" in relation
to sockpuppets. There just isn't any manliness to be found in those.
Furthermore, there are no true classic rhetorical means applying to
or involving sockpuppets, simply because the ancient romans had not
invented socks yet (nor undies!), so they didn't have a word for that,
so it just isn't in their books. HTH.
> >that you must hide behind a pseudonym, and you have done nothing of
> >value, then you can just go away, and we won't really mind.
>
> And I believe that I once said that you could fit the amount of my caring
> about your feelings toward me in a Commodore Pet and still have room for
> 4096 bytes of data. If I didn't before, I do now.
Great to hear that you found some space for the logic module!
Cheers,
Joost
PS: About that commodore, what happens when someday someone opens that
closet where you've been hiding it in and finds out whose pet it really
was all the time?
Reply to: