Re: Anton's amendment

To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Cc: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
Subject: Re: Anton's amendment
From: "Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl@icecavern.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:44:42 -0700
Message-id: <[🔎] 200602011844.45512.wjl@icecavern.net>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 8764ny8spn.fsf@becket.becket.net>
References: <[🔎] 87irrzwnl1.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com> <[🔎] 200602011754.59855.wjl@icecavern.net> <[🔎] 8764ny8spn.fsf@becket.becket.net>

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:17, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nobody has, at all, even in the least even *presented* this supposed
> interpretation of the DFSG under which the GFDL passes.

Okay, I just presented on in my last e-mail, so you can stop saying this.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: pgpLufuBDqr0q.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to:

References:
- Anton's amendment
  - From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
- Re: Anton's amendment
  - From: "Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl@icecavern.net>
- Re: Anton's amendment
  - From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Anton's amendment
Next by Date: Re: Anton's amendment
Previous by thread: Re: Anton's amendment
Next by thread: Re: Anton's amendment
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread