Re: The Sv*n L*th*r drinking game
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:52:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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 ?
"you don't even both reading here anything apart from the posts which
interests[sic] you", "half-backed claims based on pure speculation". That's
not insulting?
> > 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.
Prove it. Go on. Demonstrate, to at least a reasonable degree, where my
comments have indicated that I personally am unhappy with you because you're
still here.
What I *am* unhappy with is making an argument with you and being told that
my reasoning is bogus, and being told that I've never read the licence or
any of the discussion surrounding it, without *ANY* *BACKING* *WHATSOEVER*
to those claims.
And what really toasts my muffin is having it happen over and over again.
> > > 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
You can write a message, then go for a walk to calm down before editing it
and sending it. "Don't post angry". *Especially* when your purpose here
is, ostensibly, to persuade people to your point of view. Lighting up the
ol' flamethrower and lightly char-grilling the other participants doesn't
help that.
> 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.
Because Matthew Garrett has gotten exactly the same treatment as you, hasn't
he? He's arguing a similar stance to you, but has always made his arguments
rationally and, as such, has been well accepted and is listened to. You've
taken pot-shots at nearly everyone here, and you get ridiculed. Do you see
the difference?
> > > 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.
You've been here about a week. You've been abusive for at least half of
that time, from recollection. 4 days (at most) is not a lot of time to go
from reasoned participant to abusive twit.
> > > 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 ?
No. If I present a flawed argument that has been presented several times
before I would expect to get kicked. And I've presented flawed arguments in
the past, had them identified as such and dissected. And I've certainly
seen good arguments that I don't agree with, but which are convincing
nonetheless. Not many from you, though.
> > > 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.
That makes no sense to me. Could you split it up a bit?
> > > 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 ?
If you know your limitations in a language, surely that would suggest that
maybe you should be careful with your words?
> Let's argue in french next time, will you ?
Nope, because I know I couldn't make a sensible argument in that language,
so I wouldn't try. I'd end up making a fool of myself.
> > > 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.
Word of law. You give us *way* too much credit. And yes, in every case I
believe that my argument has logic behind it, which would have weight in a
court.
- Matt
Reply to: