Re: documentation x executable code
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > according to your particular degree of zealotry...but your zealotry is more
> > intense than what was common when we wrote the DFSG, so it's entirely possible
> > that even crazier lunatics will arrive in the future (encouraged, no doubt, by
> > the "successes" of the current crop of loonies).
>
> Okay, since you refuse to converse civilly, without constantly throwing around
> "zealot", "lunatic" and "loonies", I'm not going to converse with you. (I
> don't really have to, since your flaming rants aren't convincing anyone, and
> I've never expected to convince you directly.)
a lame excuse for dropping out of an argument that you're losing.
> Once you understand that people can, in fact, rationally disagree with
> you, you might have more success in debate.
yes, it's possible to disagree with me without being a loony or a zealot or a
fuckwit or a moron. honest disagreements are possible (and even common).
in this particular case, however, i've observed the lunacy of the principle
anti-GFDL zealots over a number of years. "lunatic" IS a valid and accurate
description. they are, for the most part, the same lunatics who regularly try
to have the non-free archives deleted. their behaviour is entirely consistent
with the theory that they are motivated by the desire to prove themselves
Holier Than Stallman. they are the free-software world's equivalent of
fundamentalist religious fanatics - i.e. zealots.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: