[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Statistics on non-free usage

> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > 1. i told you not to contact me again.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This isn't evidence that John lied about anything.  At best, it's evidence
> > that he's not following your instructions.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> for fuck's sake! i never said it was.

Ok -- you gave that in response to a statement that you had not given
any proof of John lying.  I could only think of two possible meanings for
the above "i told you" statement, and I addressed both of them.  You've
choosen to indicate that one of those two was not what you intended.

> what the fuck is wrong with people in debian?

In this case: ambiguity, and a lack of any rational argument to respond

> it's no wonder that hardly anything ever gets done in this organisation,
> everyone wastes time quibbling over stupid crap.

If you don't like that, stop supplying stupid crap to quibble over.

> > > 2. there was more in there than me just calling you a lying fuck.
> > > there was also direct evidence of you lying.  you conveniently ignored
> > > that evidence.  is this more lying, or is it mere stupidity?
> > 
> > While there might be such evidence, I couldn't recognize it.
> it looks like i *do* have to point out the bleeding obvious.
> me:
>  : > > is this really the best that you can do?  accuse anyone who is in
>  : > > favour of keeping non-free of wanting to pollute main with non-free
>  : > > stuff?  oooh!  what a scary bogeyman!
> Goerzen:
>  : > You yourself said that is what you would like to do.  There is no need 
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  : > for me to make the accusation.
> This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i want to pollute main with
> non-free stuff.
> that is a lie.  he is not miskenen or confused or misinformed.  he is lying.
> there is no basis for even mistakenly believing that claim, he lied simply to
> make me and my position look bad by misrepresenting it.

Hmm...  you didn't supply any references, so I had to poke around a bit
to get the context.  [I certainly don't memorize every post.]

It looks like you're referring to:
which apparently was in reference to your statement:
   there are some items in non-free that i personally think should not
   be there, software that is binary-only, proprietary stuff.  however,
   some people find that stuff very useful and we decided long ago that
   the criteria for what can go into non-free is not ...

Ok, since, to my knowledge, he hasn't apologized for that
misunderstanding, I guess I can empathize with your belief that it
was deliberate.

In that case, the only point I have remaining is: please post stuff
that's useful and understandable.


Reply to: