Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> If people start bringing in forged documents, no amount of caution
>>> on part of laypeople like most software developers is proof against
>>> such deception. If such deception is accepted behaviour, we may as
>>> well throw out thetrust metric, and let /. upload packages into
>> This may be true, except that *the document was not forged*.
> So you continue to claim. And since you make statements like
> this with no discernible means of you having verified them, I do not
> see how discussion with you has any value whatsoever -- you'll make
> any statements to back your position, whether or not you know them to
> be true.
Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
In the paragraph above, marked >>>, which was written by you, you
speak of deception and forgery. Nothing in the reports of the
recent incident involving Martin suggests any deception and forgery.
What about this incident makes you think that any kind of deception or
forgery was going on?