On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> It's not. What is supposed to alienate everyone is YOU telling them that >> they aren't. Telling ME is one thing: I figure that if they don't know >> enough about Debian that they know who all the flame-warriors are it's >> just as well that they wait a few years to become a DD. > >I would assume that Hoffman is also aware that he's not a developer. >Why is it supposed to alienate someone to remind them that certain >lists are primarily for the use of developers, not users?
Because they aren't. There are many world-open mailing lists, meaning anyone can read everything that is posted, and participate in the discussions. Everyone is encouraged to help development of Debian and to spread the word of free software. -legal is open subscription, thus world-open. You of course are free to file a bug to get -legal-private or -legal-moderated, but this one is for use of anyone that has a contribution. Given your "contribution" earlier today, I'd say that Hoffman had more right to use this list than you did. >> Ever been to a Cypherpunks meeting? That's _de rigeur_ behavior there... > >Yep. This is not Cypherpunks. This is Debian, and as you may have I can just see it now. T:"who are you?" C:"None of your business" T:"no, I mean it, who are you" C:"your worst nightmare if you don't quit asking questions"... >noticed, we place a priority on real identities. Or haven't you No. "Our priorities are our users and free software". I really don't remember "real identities of those connected with Debian" in there... >noticed that this is one of the new maintainer requirements? Or Through no help of mine. Didn't you throw your usual _ad hominem_ attack at me in that thread? >haven't you noticed that many find your insistence on hiding your name >to be objectionable.? I often find those who insist on asking about information that's not theirs to ask about objectionable, so the feeling's mutual. >> BTW, let me clue you in to something: you're no more Thomas Bushnell >> than I am John Galt. Both of them are arbitrary assemblages of >> letters that once can only hope has a uniqueness that allows you to >> differentiate yourself from all the other pinkish bipeds around... > >And what we want is: what the name is that everyone else knows you >by. John Galt. All of my friends also get emailed from this address. In fact, so does my connected family. >> Yours just got chosen for you by your parents (well, not really: >> they chose three names for you I'll bet...), mine got chosen for me >> when I logged into a BBS many moons ago and I had to pick an 8 >> character handle. > >Actually, no. My last name was not chosen by my parents, it was >inhereted from them. My first name is "Thomas", and it was chosen by >ME. My name at birth was "Michael Innis Bushnell". (See? No hiding >of information here.) You see? Your key name isn't the same one on your BC. For shame! >> Horsefeathers. Exclusion is the WHOLE point. The unsaid part of any line >> that starts "you aren't a part of..." is almost always "...and won't be as >> long as I can help it". > >No. It's "you aren't a Debian developer", meaning "your opinions are >simply secondary to those of the people actually doing the work, and >who have expressed commitments to the goals of our Project". Then why didn't you say that? You accused Hoffman of not being a friend. Not being a friend is worlds apart from being a second class citizen. Let's go back about a century: now you talk to a Negro (probably in the south, but irrelevant) and tell them they're not your friend. You then go on to say that you really meant that they were a Negro, so thus a second class citizen. Which is the worse thing? I would answer that they're both bad, but the lack of friendship thing would be much worse. Either way, you got just about the reaction you deserved, or at least a small fraction thereof: telling people that they aren't your friends is not the way to a healthful long life. >Thomas > -- I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own decisions. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
