Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
>
> I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
> you should spot them.
>
> In your first paragraph, you overstated your case -- you used a
> universal quantifier (all) instead of an existential quantifier (some).
>
> That good enough, or you want me to try and imitate Branden?
that's hardly a "crime" serious enough to even begin to discredit my line of
argument.
in any case, i still maintain that it is accurate - look to their actions and
their arguments, rather than their protestations of innocence since i made that
accusation. none of them give a damn what's actually in non-free, as far as
they are concerned it's all impure, all as bad as proprietary software.
> > it was tediously pedantic and neatly avoided engaging with the substance of
> > what i said while giving the illusion of addressing each point.
>
> Yeah. So?
so it's not worth spending any time or effort responding. all that does is
invite another round of tedious quibbling. the purpose of quibbling is not to
engage in debate but to distract from points of arguments that you have no
answer to. i choose not to fall into such obvious traps.
> > his criticism was not constructive. it was a pedantic time-waster.
> > [...]
>
> So ignore that part. Or say that some of what he wrote was silly. Or
> whatever... but put some useful content into your posts.
most of his post was stupid crap like that. if there was anything of real
substance in there, it was buried so deep that it wasn't worth the effort of
extracting and commenting on.
also...if he wants to participate in a debate, surely it's HIS responsibility
to clearly state his case without burying it so deeply in crap that it can't be
seen. it's certainly not his opponents' job to make or clarify his arguments
for him.
> Nevertheless, I think you have some positive points you could make, if you
> could get out of ranting mode and into thinking about what you're saying
> mode.
i didn't think i was ranting.
i could have ignored his message or i could have made some amusing (to me, at
least) comment about his pedantry. i chose the latter.
> One thing, though -- if you've been reading this message as you replied,
> you're going to have some nasty comments aimed at me at the top of
> your reply.
why?
nothing you said was particularly objectionable. mistaken
and misguided, but not offensive.
craig
Reply to: