Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
>
> Craig,
>
> I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
> not with insults and shouting.
no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and
determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just
gives up. it's really not worth the bother of "debating" with extremist
nutcases, you just go around and around in circles over the same ground.
and you can't win. no matter what points you make, you jerks will
just ignore them and THEN CONTINUE WITH THE SAME OLD LIES, NO MATTER
HOW OFTEN OR HOW RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED. and when that
isn't working, or perhaps just for variety, you lot throw in all sorts
of stupid non-sequitirs and tangents to distract and side-track any
argument so that it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. for months. or
years. and again and again and again.
i've been suckered into playing that game before. i have no interest
in doing so again. the only sane response is to just try to ignore you
creeps as much and for as long as possible....and mostly i succeed.
i don't even bother reading the debian lists more than once every two
or three months these days - and whenever i do, the same damn arguments
are raging. how long have you zealots dragged this GFDL one out for?
one year? two years? or is it three? and it's EXACTLY the same fucking
argument. after all this time. nothing ever changes.
and before that it was trying to get rid of the non-free section of the
archive, making such a huge fuss about the dreadful non-free programs in
there. nobody even bothered evaluating all the software to figure out
what kind of non-free software it was - until I did....i went through
every single package in non-free and made notes on their licenses, and
IIRC there were less than a dozen (out of about 200 or so) that didn't
have source or didn't allow modification or redistribution. almost all
of the licensing problems were trivial or only prohibited commercial
exploitation. not exactly free, but nothing to get rabidly upset about,
either (in fact, IIRC some of the authors were subsequently contacted
and agreed to change the license terms so that they were truly free
- that's the RIGHT way to fix problems). even being presented with
facts like that didn't stop the argument, BECAUSE YOU ARSEWIPES AREN'T
INTERESTED IN FACTS OR REALITY, you're only interested in your bullshit
uber-zealot point of view. anything not matching your loony extemist
prejudices is ignored - it simply does not exist for you lot.
that's why arguing with people like you is a complete waste of time.
and as for the insults - frankly, people like you who have ruined the
debian organisation deserve a lot worse than i've ever given you.
BTW, here's a real world fact for you: repeating something false, no
matter how loudly or how often you do it, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. even
writing a FAQ document doesn't turn a falsehood into truth.
really. i know you'll find that hard to believe, but that's the way
the *REAL WORLD* works. i'm not sure what world you live in, but you
obviously believe it works very differently to the real world. it must
be very nice for you.
> Respectfully,
i have no respect for nutcases and vandals.
debian was a great organisation before your ilk came along and ruined
it.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: