Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:05:20PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Quoting more severely trimmed, following Raul's objection to volume in
> another thread.
Um... I wasn't objecting to the volume -- I was objecting to you
[seemingly deliberately, because the case was so simple] quoting out
of context.
> > Then the proper way to respond would be with a reference to that other
> > forum.
>
> Other subthreads, not another forum.
You had said "They are being actively discussed elsewhere, so dividing
the discussions would be a nuisance." in a context where you had claimed
someone else should have known something you hadn't said on debian-vote.
I guess I can understand that by "elsewhere" you meant "in debian-vote,
but not in this subthread", but I must confess that meaning was not
clear until you declared it explicitly.
> >> [...] 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.
The first claim ('hinders debian') was my interpretation of your statement
. Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to support
. non-free helping to prevent the problems from being
. solved? Already, someone has mentioned some Java packages
. that I think could be in Debian but aren't. Is that because
. contrib is an easy enough home for them? If so, then removing
. non-free and contrib from our infrastructure would probably
. encourage them into Debian, solving one problem.
The second claim ('some other forum') was my interpretation of your statement
. They are being actively discussed elsewhere, so dividing the discussions
. would be a nuisance.
But it seems to me that you're the one making claims of hidden meanings.
> > 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.
You did not indicate that his reasoning was wrong, you quibbled about
the details. You did not show that your disagreement with his estimates
was relevant to the reasoning he presented (other, different numbers,
would show the same point -- if the numbers were mildly different his
reasoning would remain intact would be because because the numbers would
reflect the same situation, if the number were radically different his
reasoning would remain intact because the numbers are ludicrous).
Furthermore, his numbers were clearly presented as an illustration of
his reasoning, not as proof of it.
Which is why I've claimed that you studiously ignored his point.
> > 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.
These kinds of numbers have to be estimates. Within that constraint --
and given that the point of using those numbers was to illustrate
his point, not to prove it -- the numbers were plenty accurate.
See also http://www.bartleby.com/64/C004/003.html for a writeup on this
contrast between precision and accuracy.
--
Raul
Reply to: