Re: Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> I read Jeremy's message as suggesting that whether something was the
> preferred form of modification for the author was more important than
> whether or not it was modifiable by anyone else.
Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a "just" or some
"reasonably"s into it to help you, but it looks fairly
clear from the original context what narrow aspect he was
looking at. Remember, your previous intervention Message-id:
<[🔎] E1D6T7Y-00075z-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> only considered one
question 'Is the JPEG your "source"?' from David Schmitt's list
of questions. *You* specialised the subthread, so you shouldn't
start playing people offside by regeneralising it.
Further, your definition of source code in Message-id:
<[🔎] E1D6dyQ-0002lh-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> is full of lawyerbombs
and looks unworkable, apart from possibly causing a PR disaster
by blanket-banning machine code sources from main if you mean
one reasonably possible interpretation.
> Having gone back and
> reread it, I still interpret that way. If that interpretation was wrong,
> then I wholeheartedly apologise.
Given that he's already asked you "Are you willfully refusing
to understand what I said", I don't see how you can reasonably
still claim that your representation of him was accurate.
Again, I am seriously worried that I agree with Andrew Suffield. :-/
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.
Reply to: