Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Quoting more severely trimmed, following Raul's objection to volume in
another thread. It's all process rather than the issue. I'll not reply
on-list like this again, but I wanted to put one example in public and
hope people draw the correct conclusion about the other threads I
ignore. Sorry for wasting time.
On 2004-01-06 13:47:18 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
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.
The discussion is not taking place in another forum. It should be
fairly easy to discover that I have not run debian infrastructure and
I think Anthony knew it already.
Then the proper way to respond would be with a reference to that other
forum.
Other subthreads, not another forum.
[...] your claims of hidden meanings.
What claims are you talking about?
Things like 'You've claimed that non-free, as it currently exists
"hinders debian"' or 'your claims that the content you're talking
about are on some other forum'. There are many more examples littering
this thread.
His numbers were to illustrate a point -- a point which you have
studiously ignored. [...]
I "studiously ignored" it with a reply disagreeing with his estimates.
In other words, his numbers were imprecise, but not inaccurate.
"not inaccurate"? Isn't that "accurate"? If you think those numbers
are accurate, you are beyond reason.
[... NM questions ...] How is this relevant to the current thread?
In <[🔎] 20040103114623.GC1386@azure.humbug.org.au>, it was asserted that
there's nothing special about DDs over non-DDs. I disagreed and you
contradicted me. The questions were an attempt to understand why.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: