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

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
> > people who can't understand sarcasm?
> I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm
> with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu
> post was important to quite a few people.

Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few
people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu
stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not,
then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't
think "important to the subscribers" is the correct measure.

> I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile
> against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was
> trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind
> Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in
> Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are
> really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to
> help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about
> Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it.

I considered editing this out, but I'm quoting it instead because it's
a neat bit of libel[0] in an attempt to change the subject. This is
not about Ubuntu at all - it could have been *anybody*'s press release
being reposted. This is about appropriate use of Debian mailing lists.

[0] I don't know who made this shit up, but as far as I'm aware it's
    purely fictional. We're objecting to Ubuntu's *PR*, and they're
    complaining that we're trying to stop collaberation? WTF?

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: