[Don't Cc me; I read the list] On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:27:48AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:26:04PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:35:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:46:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > > > > He, i can inform you that in our "small team" as Andreas would say, for which > > > > > i came to post 300+ mails to -legal in order to not get our 50+ packages moved > > > > > to non-free without warning over a couple of dissident or other bogus tests, > > > > > there is a big concensus that -legal is not thrustable and no real help in > > > > > DFSG freeness. > > > > > > > > Why do you think that you would get no warning? It's not like > > > > > > Because the first mention i got of the problem was when some debian-legal > > > following idiot send me a bug report that my package was non-free, that > > > > So it's the fault of the entire mailing list that someone read it and did > > something ill-advised? > > Well, they may have invited me in earlier before someone got the idea that > they reached consensus and that immediate action was in order, don't you > think ? Immediate action wasn't in order. The draft summary was under discussion, nothing more. > > > > I know it's easier to close down small debates early, but your > > > > tactics in the QPL discussions were disgusting and only helped > > > > > > Because i was disgusted. And the first set of of response to me posting > > > there were about those bogus pseudo-tests and not rooted in the DFSG, and > > > without any hope of reasonable discussion. > > > > Hope of reasonable discussion was lost when you immediately trotted out the > > insults and personal attacks, despite several peoples' attempts to keep > > things civil. > > immediately, or when i had lost hours of work trying to discuss this > reasonably ? You descended pretty quickly. Do you need me to quote you in all your glory here as well? > > For anyone still watching, I prepared a concise summary of Sven's behaviour > > in d-legal here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01308.html > > I will admit it may not be the most conservatively phrased article, but bear > > in mind it was written after being one of the butts of Sven's invective for > > nearly a week. > > Ah, and who was it that took said discussion on a more serious track again? I take it you want me to say "you", but I can't. You didn't. > And the above was nothing but an ad-hominem attack on me just because i "Attacking the man, not the argument" only applies when you have an argument to attack. > didn't curb myself and bow to the all powerfull consensus of debian-legal > time-losers? Your reality-distortion field has no effect on me. Several regular d-legal contributors have differing views to each other, and appear to get on quite fine. You got attacked because you attacked. Crying about it here, there, or anywhere else isn't going to change that. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature