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

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:07:07PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as
> >applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear,
> >stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points out
> >why their argument is flawed (in every discussion, not just licensing
> >ones).
> >
> >In all the FDL debates, there has not once been a solid argument that
> >it is actually acceptable, which was not immediately rebutted. If
> >anybody thinks otherwise, they are invited to present their argument
> >*and then defend it in the face of skilled opposition*.
>     There are two ways of viewing debate: one is that debate is a
> means of persuading others that your point is the correct one, the
> other is that debate is a means of deriving truth (or at least
> correctness).

The second is the relevant one, I would say.

> Thus it's not "lunatic" to offer what seems to be
> a plausible argument and then not continue to argue for it when a
> convincing refutation is offered.

<shrug> Sure, but we also have a few nutcases who perpetually raise
the same points in different subthreads until people get tired of
repeating the same refutations. They're responsible for much of the
perceived "debate" on -devel recently.

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

Attachment: pgpe4KxVvPz6f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: