Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-05 15:34:37 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > I didn't see anything in Anthony's message to make me believe that he
> > knew about your employment history.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:09:32PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Nor do I, but I didn't claim that he did. You seem to argue against
> something that wasn't written. I only claimed that he already knew I
> hadn't run the debian infrastructure. Please stop playing word games.
> It annoys me and I hope most subscribers spot it.
That's not a word game, it's honest ignorance of the fact that you were
holding part of your discussion in this forum and part in another.
> > I think a summarization of the relevant points would not be
> > off topic.
>
> They are being actively discussed elsewhere, so dividing the
> discussions would be a nuisance. I hope that the OP will summarise
> substantial points in good time.
Then the proper way to respond would be with a reference to that other
forum.
> > But if you want to restate your reasons for getting rid of non-free,
> > that's fine with me: you're the expert on that.
> You are the one expertly playing word games, with your claims of
> hidden meanings.
What claims are you talking about?
For that matter, how are your claims that the content you're talking
about are on some other forum (which I don't know about) anything other
than claims of hidden meanings?
> > Those are the measurements you're asking about, correct?
>
> No, I do not know which measurements are most interesting and I did
> not request any specific ones from him. That should be obvious to the
> most casual observer. I am surprised that he chose to invent numbers.
His numbers were to illustrate a point -- a point which you have
studiously ignored. The specific values of those numbers were not
relevant. The rough magnitudes of those numbers were relevant.
In other words, his numbers were imprecise, but not inaccurate.
> Let's break this up, as I'm confused by your non-answer: Do you think
> that n-m allows through people with drive, but insufficient knowledge?
> Do you think that philosophy, procedures, tasks and skills are not
> knowledge?
Insufficient for what? How is this relevant to the current thread?
> >>>> No. I say let the "bazaar" decide.
> >>> You mean, instead of voting on it?
> >> No.
> > Then that's an unfair statement -- because you're advocating replacing
> > "letting the bazaar decide" with "let's vote on it."
>
> I think I am advocating replacing debian support for this with support
> outside debian by people who are interested in it. It looks like most
> debian developers don't package non-free software. Given your reason
> is wrong (those quotes are not replacements for each other), do you
> still think it unfair?
If that is your purpose, then I think you could do quite a bit better
at expressing it. [I certainly didn't get that idea until now.]
However, I now don't know what it is that you want to 'let the "bazaar"'
decide (and this time I'm using literal quotes, rather than scare
quotes *). So I am not in a position to judge whether or not your
statement is fair.
--
Raul
* http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/local/doc/punctuation/node31.html
Reply to: