Re: Candidate questions/musings
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01914.html
> > This does not say you are a hypocrite. In this message, Nathanael
> > Nerode says you convinced him "of the historic level of hypocrisy and
> > wilful Social Contract violation in Debian."
>
> Yes, it does: I'm one of the people who made the decision to keep GFDL and
> other non-free docs in main. The place where that decision is documented
> is http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt. The decision was
> made at the request of the DPL, but nevertheless under my authority as
> RM, and under the authority of the ftpmaster group of which I'm a part.
But it is not, in fact, targeted at you specifically, and it has
nothing to do with removing non-free, as Nathanael indicated.
> If it wasn't your intention to focus on whether "this or that person is
> personally responsible for "breaking" it", then perhaps you should again
> consider the wisdom of titling the thread "Why Anthony Towns is
> wrong".
I have told you already--but you don't seem to want to hear--that I
would be happy to substitute "Why Anthony Towns's Arguments are
Incorrect".
Your arguments were wrong because people have lots of trouble
understanding what the Social Contract says in so many words. An
excellent example was your own words, but it doesn't matter who said
it--the argument you made that was wrong was that the social contract
is doing just fine.
> > This message (by Andrew Suffield) says only "you reap what you sow";
> > indeed, the point is that you engage yourself in assuming the worst of
> > people.
>
> Really? I'm yet to see any examples.
So far, this thread.
> And I'm afraid I'm far from convinced that I've misunderstood either
> message, least of all given Nathanael has confirmed my impression,
> let alone misrepresented either.
Huh? Nathanael actually said that you *had* misunderepresented what
he said, and now you are misrepresenting his correction. *Wonderful!*
> Andrew was "implying" nothing -- he was stating outright that I deserve
> to be mistreated.
He said, "You reap what you sow". That's what he said outright.
> What would be inappropriate is trying to reverse the decision once it's been
> made; but surely you're not accusing me of that?
No, I think you simply want to continue the flame war because it
pleases you.
Thomas
Reply to: