Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i want to pollute main with
> > non-free stuff.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> You said you wanted things out of non-free.
Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twice, and "out of
non-free" is not equivalent to "in main".
Other possibilities are "into contrib" and "not distributed at all".
Since he explicitly indicated "not contributed at all", and since he's
posted the complete sentence multiple times, it's really strange that
you're claiming otherwise.
> However, I do not owe you any apology.
Of course not. Apologies are for things you're sorry about.
If you're not sorry about reversing his meaning, you shouldn't apologize.
> Had you accused me of misunderstanding you, I would readily apologize
> upon a clear explanation of your position. However, you have never even
> advanced that, so it is difficult to know if I truly have misunderstood
> you, and to what degree.
Um... he's prickly, but in this case I think you should at least read the
complete sentence of his that you're referring to (the "out of non-free"
sentence) before claiming it's difficult to know if you've misunderstood
him. Or if not the whole sentence, at least read the second line.
Though... he's convinced that you are intelligent enough to have read
the entire sentence before responding to it. And, maybe he's right.
Thanks,
--
Raul, leading by awful example
Reply to: