Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 20:17, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 05:01:29PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > > > The bottom line is that if you or anyone else tries to put some sort of
> > > > > censorware into Debian that is at all subjective, I will make sure that all
> > > > > of my packages conflict with it, and I hope that others do the same.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm. Censorship for the sake of freedom of expression. I see.
> > >
> > > Yeah, you already tried this argument. Sorry, but it doesn't hold water.
> >
> > I've yet to see a rebuttal (besides "nyah nyah, you stink, asshole").
>
> Gee, that's a new one. Cut out the rebuttal and then claim you never saw it.
I was referring to other people's rebuttals. But, I'll bite:
> Your proposal is being rejected because of its lack of technical merit,
As mentioned several times before, implementing a voting system is not a
difficult technical problem. Not that there was anything technical to
criticize, as not a single line of code had been written.
Oh, you mean that the proposal lacks *social* merit? Try saying what
you mean, instead of trying to sound like a hotshot.
> not
> because of anything you have to say.
This would explain your usage of such technical words as "bullshit" when
criticizing the "technical" proposal. No bias here.
> If you had actually put some time and
> thought into your proposal before spewing it out on the list
I thought about it for days before proposing it. I wondered if people
on the list were mature enough to discuss it without resorting to
personal attacks. Stupid of me, eh?
> then maybe it
> would have been worthwhile,
Several people have expressed the notion that my general ideas might
have merit (whatever flaws might exist in my implementation).
> but in your rush to censor
Tell me, again (since I must have missed it), how *adding* information
to the system is censorship?
> you came up with
> something brilliantly stupid.
Can't refute personal bias, so you win on that one. Those few who value
your opinion must be convinced now.
Back to the present:
> You phrased your e-mail in the form of a proposal, not an off-the-cuff
> e-mail asking for comments.
So? Last time I checked, proposals were for proposing. I'll spare you
the dictionary reference.
> As for feedback, you got plenty of that, so
> mission accomplished.
With a few exceptions, the feedback was appreciated, analyzed, and
considered. Three guesses as to whose "feedback" wasn't.
This is my last response to you, so feel free to vent.
Reply to: