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

Re: begging the question

On 2003-09-30, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
>> > Your thesis contains two contradictory points. Branden has responded
>> > to one of them, citing the other, and pointed out the
>> > contradiction. That is the entire point of his question.
>> >=20
>> > The two points that are in conflict are:
>> >=20
>> > 1) These works were intentially included in Debian as a result of
>> >    conscious choice on the part of developers
>> > 2) Identifying these works in order to remove them would be
>> >    prohibitively expensive in its use of time.
>> These are not in the least contradictory.  ...
> So you are now retracting your original argument, and instead claiming
> that developers chose to ignore this problem *without* investigating
> the details? In future please state your two-line arguments instead of
> using eight-line vague analogies.

No, he's saying that developers were aware of the issue in general
terms, but not the specific files.  (So they didn't investigate the
details, but also didn't ignore the problem.)

In the absence of input from the developers in Debian at the time, I
find this whole discussion fairly pointless; I also think it's
irrelevant.  Debian should do the right think now.


Reply to: