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

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[don't be confused about the To header, this is merly just for testing a
 propable b0rked setup]

* Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@squirrelmail.org> [2006-01-18 10:26]:
> Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a
> metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly
> have been people who uttered "Hey, he's not German! He's lying!". But
> luckily most people will have understood what he meant.

 Then it's still Kennedy's problem, because he didn't claim something
for others.

 I know what you mean, though Mark is forcing a claim onto us, where the
term Debian Developer is quite strictly defined within our roles, people
in the NM queue aren't called Debian Developers.

 For me and quite some others, if you read the thread, the term $foo
Developer implies that the person is able to incorporate changes into
$foo directly. I understand what Mark meant, but on the wiki page where
the cite is there isn't any context at all, and no explenation on how
it's meant. It's vastly misunderstandable.

> Same goes for Shuttleworth here, if it wasn't obvious from the context
> already (which IMO it was)

 The thing is, there isn't any context in that wiki page. I'm pleased
that he sees us as (in)valueable, but given that still every now and
then misguided reports appear doesn't really help, especially when it's
about ubuntu changed packages which we can't do anything about.

 So long,
use Mail::Signature;
$sig = Mail::Signature->new;
print $sig->random;

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: