Re: The Sv*n L*th*r drinking game
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> > > > has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
> > >
> > > *You've* driven three people out of this discussion with your personal abuse
> > > against them. Who is exactly is trying to berate the opposition into
> > > silence and then claim they hold the consensus opinion, exactly?
> >
> > Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
> > people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
> > then claim consensus afterwards. They may just as well procede to say
> > that whoever left is an unclued idiot, because they are not around to
> > defend themselvees anyway.
>
> Yeah, I reckon:
>
> "Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it
> clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts
> which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims
> based on pure speculation."
>
> (Sven Luther, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01122.html)
And ? how is that insulting ? Anymore insulting that making claims without
even bothering to read the licence in question, claims that have such a power
over the fate of a package ?
> "Brian, i ask you to not [...] to participate in this thread [...]. I will
> consider any conclusion you have participated in as void and not binding, as
> you are obviously clueless [...]"
>
> (Sven Luther, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01203.html)
The mail this was responding too was obviously non-informed, and was following
up from a few other mails where it was clear Brian had only his interpretation
in mind, and didn't care to face them with the reality of what is actually
written in the licence, despite me pointing the problems out to him. This is
of no use to debian-legal, and only weakens the whole point.
> "I've refrained from posting further directly on the QPL issue."
>
> (Brian Thomas Sniffen,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01375.html)
Which is much to his honor.
> If you'd like, I'll dig up a few instances where Brian has been ridiculed
> after having removed himself from the thread, to back up your "They may just
> as well procede to say that whoever left is an unclued idiot, because they
> are not around to defend themselvees anyway", but there's so many of them
Hehe.
> you can basically fall over them in any post made over the last few days by
> Sven.
Well, you are only unhappy with me because i didn't leave, and dared to put a
finger into the misfunction of the debian-legal decision process. I should
have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
without moving, apart from relying your "let's GPL it" advice to upstream.
> > Sven's arguments seem clear and important to me, and it behooves us to pay
> > attention and address them.
>
> I thought that, too, for about four days, but after the approximately
> eighth time Sven's "arguments" consisted of abuse, ridicule, and nothing
> even vaguely resembling reason, I gave up.
So, i apologize for being upset and harsh, i clearly should have not. Still,
after reading mail after mail of clueless non-sense, i could sense the anger
build in me, and was not able to put a stop on it while replying. Again i
apologize for that, and hope that i have put a stop to it with the last thread
i started, which hopefully will be void of abuse on both part.
> > can avoid it. Most especially I do not want to reach the situation where
> > a theorist on debian-legal has found a theoretical problem that the maintainer
> > of the package disagrees with.
>
> That's the commencement of the discussion. The theorist and the maintainer
> then discuss the issue to a point of agreement. Or, at least, that's what
> happens when the maintainer doesn't have a 100-post hissy-fit, anyway.
Well, the thread was long enough before i started to post, and what actually
happens is that the debian-legal mob bands together, and bashes on the DD for
not accepting their half-backed arguments inconditionally.
Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced arguments
in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the
arguments i held there where responded. And then i read those hundred of
unrelated mails, and wondered where the consensus was, and where the
discussion was that lead to said consensus, and found nothing.
> > Of course, even aside from the process question, there is an issue of
> > proper treatment of fellow Debian developers. We are all on the same
> > side, but some people seem to be forgetting this.
>
> Indeed.
Well, i don't see you threating me as i am on the same side, and previous
bashing i received for debian-legal participation, almost made me leave debian
in disgust altogether.
> > If you think Sven and I are exagerating, let me toss out a few examples from
> > just the last couple of weeks:
>
> And the beginning of this thread gave quite a number of examples of Sven,
> all by himself, insulting other members of debian-legal.
Sure, but if you go over them, it was a gradual process.
> > Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
> > > > of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
> > > > and that's what a choice of venue clause tells you (at least, to the
> > > > point anything is certain in law).
> > >
> > > Wrong wrong wrong. Please pay attention.
> >
> > How is it "wrong", much less "wrong wrong wrong", to point out a new
> > argument?
>
> When the argument is flawed? Choice of venue does not necessarily specify
> the laws which will be used. Choice of law does that. But you know that.
Sure, and your arguments are never flawed, but your oponents always are ?
> > And why am I supposed to "pay attention" here, when clearly I
> > am pointing out something that people are overlooking? This is not the
> > kind of treatement a fresh idea should receive. I have yet to see
>
> It's not a fresh idea. It's been dealt with before. Several times. The
> same points get brought up regularly, and it gets frustrating. Sven sees it
> and goes apeshit, and you ignore it. Someone who disagrees with you gets
> frustrated, and you raise it up as an example of the brutality of
> debian-legal.
This is supposed to be debian-legal the ultimate-but-one authority on what is
DFSG-free, and the arguing you do is not only bullying of the lone developer
who dares oppose you, but not upto the responsability involved by the
consequences of a debian-legal consensus.
> > G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I'm afraid your response was far too scholarly and informed to be taken
> > > seriously by anyone who feels that choice-of-law or -venue clauses are just
> > > fine by the DFSG.
> >
> > This was the entire content of one post, aside from a rot-13'd comment
> > that this is sarcastic. This post had no purpose other than to flame
> > someone and to rabble rouse. Further, we see here again the implicit
>
> It was a bit of a "flame", but at least it was a stylish one.
So, it is ok if Branden is sarcastic, because he is a native english speaker,
and on your side most of the time, but not if it is me, who is your opponent,
and maybe a bit clumsy because of the language barrier ? Let's argue in french
next time, will you ?
> > Here we see the strategy of spamming out a bunch of flames in order to
> > quickly eliminate the weak of heart and the short of time.
>
> I'd consider it the strategy of calling a spade a spade in order to quickly
> eliminate the weak of argument and the short of logic.
Well, no, it only keeps those who are more vocal and have more time to loose
here.
> > This is exactly the kind of thing I and Sven are talking about. There
> > is an implicit assumption here that an argument crafted over more than a
> > day or two must obviously be inferior to one that is spammed out from
> > the tip of the brain.
>
> No, I think the assumption is that if you made the argument in the first
> place, you would have *some* basis of logic to back up the argument already.
And, do you have this ? Would you really go before a judge with your
argumentation ? And even if you do, many here would not, and still their
arguments, with all the decisive power they have, are taken as word of law.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: