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

Re: The Sv*n L*th*r drinking game

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> > Sven's messages are constantly and deliberately laced with derision and
> > insults--in almost *every* message he posts.  Perhaps returning it with
> So, please show me the derision and insults in the serious thread i started
> later ?

Too late for some people.

> And do you not think that making half-backed assertion is not an
> insult to the inteligence of both the contributors here, and the upstream
> author whose licence you are discussing.

You say that so often, but I'm having trouble coming up with instances in
which you have shown how, precisely, the arguments raised are half-baked. 
There's no shortage of instances of you saying that arguments are bogus (or
worse), but reasoned rebuttals aren't exactly universal.

> > and less derisive and condescending than Sven's behavior towards all of us.
> Well, if your argumentation has been upto it, maybe i wouldn't have needed
> to be so condescending, but this was clearly not the case.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your obvious wisdom and show us how our
argumentation could be improved, rather than simply calling us ignorant? 
You know, showing benevolence to the little people and all that.

> You know debian-legal has some extreme power in debian, power only matched by
> the RM and the ftp-masters, since concensus here will mean almost-automatic
> removal of a package from the archive without much way to change it. With this

Bullshit.  No debian-legal regular (AFAIK) has power to remove stuff from
the archive, so we're down to making a summary and petitioning ftpmasters
with that.  If our arguments are thoroughly unconvincing, then the summary
will be laughed at and discarded.

> And you don't think that my behavior was a direct consequence of the way
> debian-legal operate, and the sub-par decision process you have here ?

Cool.  Blaming us for being abused.  Thanks.

- Matt

Reply to: