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

Re: Statistics on non-free usage

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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".

Yes, that did not occur to me at the time I read, which I way I granted
that I may have misunderstood.  However, that is not what Craig has
accused me of.  He has accused me of being a liar and deliberately
deceitful.  While he has shown evidence of a misunderstanding, he has
not shown evidence of lying; that is the difference I note.

> 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.

Like I said, he's not showing evidence that I intentionally
misrepresented him.  He's showing evidence of a misunderstanding.  Which
is why I said if he had claimed I misunderstood, I would have
apologized.  (As I did with Luther, though it turned out I was right
anyway.)  But that was not his claim.  He said I was a "lying fuck".  I
maintain he is wrong on that.

> 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.

I have gone back and re-read it, which is why I say I can see the
misunderstanding.  Obviously I read too fast, or skimmed, or
misremembered before.  I don't recall exactly what happened.  But the
point remains too that it is not just this one sentence that gave me
that idea; his other remarks lead me to that conclusion (such as saying
that practicality always trumps idealogy, then there are no practical
reasons that documentation should be a problem) too.  That is why I said
I may have misunderstood, because I am still not sure exactly where he

> Though... he's convinced that you are intelligent enough to have read
> the entire sentence before responding to it.  And, maybe he's right.

Yup.  I am also imperfect. 

-- John

Reply to: