* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 15:53]:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
examples.
Eliza Why is it that you think I said *you* were not he? /Eliza
(and I don't expect you to answer that here,
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
concrete examples.
The only 'example' I can hold you
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 15:24]:
My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
share that vision unabashedly with anyone who
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-12 15:53]:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
examples.
Eliza Why is it that you think I said *you* were not he? /Eliza
(and I don't expect you to answer that here,
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
concrete examples.
The only 'example' I can hold you
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 15:24]:
My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
share that vision unabashedly with anyone who will listen.
What I'm seeing (again) from the two mainstream
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 15:24]:
My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
share that vision unabashedly with anyone who
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll
Hallo, Andy
Thank You for Your kind and patient answer. I'll think about
possibilities of trying testing release.
It couldn't harm if there'll be some easier-to-install, quite functional
testing, however :o)
The most problems I have had were: freezing installer, unresolvable ways
of
* Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-11 15:24]:
My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
share that vision unabashedly with anyone who will listen.
What I'm seeing (again) from the two mainstream
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
for] is the state of glibc:
[1] Upstream sources generally are not buildable on older versions of the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
involve changing a few others just to
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for example, consider how --prefix= magically impacts what gets
built.
Hrm; I guess I knew about that from the beginning because I had a role
in it, but you're right, that's an important bit of undocumented
magic.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
for] is the state of glibc:
[1]
Branden writes:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:06:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
minded, bigoted group.
Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
enough to be able to interact with women yet.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:22:27AM +1030, Ron wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I've drunk to excess in biker pubs before, but I
think the important part of what what Manoj was inferring was:
Keep it in texas dude. (and if he wasn't then I am)
That goes double for the 'baby kissing' bandwidth
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And yet still its not short enough to already know your preference for
a public flogging over any exercise involving self restraint.
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise. If we want to make Debian
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that he has ever done for the project?
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll
I, being a man, am also scarried when interacting with Debian webpage or
mailing list. I'm not too confident about my skills, and I feel
something like we know the way, please don't tell us Your opinion
around Debian. Maybe I feel wrong, but if this is what does scare You
too, than maybe some
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
involve changing a few others just to allow
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
involve changing a few others just to
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, for example, consider how --prefix= magically impacts what gets
built.
Hrm; I guess I knew about that from the beginning because I had a role
in it, but you're right, that's an important bit of undocumented
magic.
Thomas
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
for] is the state of glibc:
[1]
Branden writes:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:06:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
minded, bigoted group.
Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
enough to be able to interact with women yet.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:22:27AM +1030, Ron wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I've drunk to excess in biker pubs before, but I
think the important part of what what Manoj was inferring was:
Keep it in texas dude. (and if he wasn't then I am)
That goes double for the 'baby kissing' bandwidth
Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And yet still its not short enough to already know your preference for
a public flogging over any exercise involving self restraint.
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise. If we want to make Debian
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that he has ever done for the project?
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
#debian as a Project resource.
Fair enough. Do you think that hosting it on
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
#debian as a Project resource.
Fair enough. Do you think that hosting it on
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result.
Are you assuming that
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of
the discussion about James, and
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was
Hi, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
example of this.]
Not really.
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
nothing to address?
Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means for
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result.
Are you assuming that
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of
the discussion about James, and
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was
Hi, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
example of this.]
Not really.
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
put me down or be condescending
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote:
All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
under-representation of women) as other systems
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian;
Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I
thank you for that but I must say you are engaging
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
nothing to address?
Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means for
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
we have a reason to do
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:06:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
women in male dominated
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Andrew Suffield]
Psychology and sociology are fuzzy sciences for the most part,
where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
be
name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point, otherwise, instead
of
making up these weird arguments against something, how about partitcipating in the
discussion instead of making up a totally irrelevant one?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
worrying about and trying to fix. I do not think that Helen has
given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
feel.
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
result. And even to take action based on that assumption. Or do you
always wait for perfect information before
We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
babies or not. He probably does, lock him up.
If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
action based on your guess - go ahead. But
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That may be true. However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
you seem to be asking for.
By no means would I ever say that the evidence isn't forthcoming.
I've seen it
Please at least quote the post you are responding to. You don't seem to
have the proper headers set, at least mutt is not able to thread your
posting. Thus, I am completely unable to tell what you are talking
about.
Michael
my bad, i was using a rather crippled mailer, and not my usual
[Andrew Suffield]
We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
babies or not. He probably does, lock him up.
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we
have an
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
arguments.
If it's true that
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. ...
...
I think
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 01:36]:
OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; and
helix tells me that this is how they are treated all the time
[...]
However, #debian on
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:31:42PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
[lots of partially amusing but mostly silly text snipped]
Ooooh! There's another idea! We can feed Gone with the Wind (iirc that
was the title), th script of Titanic and other stuff to a megahal, put a
tama frontend on it, dress it
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ended up
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
meekness isn't about bullying.
it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
it is a disability which varies in severity from being
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yes, bullying happens too. but meekness happens whether there is any actual
bullying or not.
Meekness isn't harmful, nor does it ever justify your bullying.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
meekness isn't about bullying.
it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
socially crippled..it is not the fault, or
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
we have a reason to do
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:26:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:58:03 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:06:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
women in male dominated
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:39:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Yes, very clever. And also very silly. When collated in large
numbers, anecdotes _do_ become data -- ask any psychologist or
sociologist.
No, I refuse to accept this.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Andrew Suffield]
Psychology and sociology are fuzzy sciences for the most part,
where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
be
name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point, otherwise,
instead of
making up these weird arguments against something, how about partitcipating in
the
discussion instead of making up a totally irrelevant one?
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:09AM +, simon raven wrote:
name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point,
otherwise, instead of making up these weird arguments against
something, how about partitcipating in the discussion instead of
making up a totally irrelevant one?
We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
babies or not. He probably does, lock him up.
If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
action based on your guess - go ahead. But
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That may be true. However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
you seem to be asking for.
By no means would I ever say that the evidence isn't forthcoming.
I've seen it
Please at least quote the post you are responding to. You don't seem to
have the proper headers set, at least mutt is not able to thread your
posting. Thus, I am completely unable to tell what you are talking
about.
Michael
my bad, i was using a rather crippled mailer, and not my usual
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Andrew Suffield]
We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
babies or not. He probably does, lock him up.
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
Many
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
arguments.
If it's true that
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. ...
...
I think
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-04 01:36]:
OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; and
helix tells me that this is how they are treated all the time
[...]
However, #debian on
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:31:42PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
[lots of partially amusing but mostly silly text snipped]
Ooooh! There's another idea! We can feed Gone with the Wind (iirc that
was the title), th script of Titanic and other stuff to a megahal, put a
tama frontend on it, dress it
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ended up
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
meekness isn't about bullying.
it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
it is a disability which varies in severity from being
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yes, bullying happens too. but meekness happens whether there is any actual
bullying or not.
Meekness isn't harmful, nor does it ever justify your bullying.
Thomas
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:07:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:04:15AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x28.html#AEN41
Hey, I remember that incident, and the author of the HOWTO has blown
it out of
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:37:43AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:07:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:04:15AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x28.html#AEN41
Hey, I
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:25:49 +, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:37:43AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:07:06AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:04:15AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
debian as a Project resource.
Fair enough. Do you think that hosting it on any other irc
network is likely to change matters, though? The
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:34:11 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
insightful, except for one important detail.
the situation does not discriminate against women, in particular, it
discriminates against a particular personality trait - meekness.
meekness is found in both men and
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software coding,
coding in general, and CS overall?
Sunspots. It's at least as convincing.
--
.''`.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
debian as a Project resource.
Fair enough. Do you think that hosting
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software coding,
coding in general, and
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
women in male dominated
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:25:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, Helen is kind enough to summarise her views on why she doesn't
participate in the project as fully as she might, and she's called a
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quite. But you too are ignoring one detail: that behavioral
trait is expressed preferentially in one gender; perhaps due to
cultural indoctrination, perhaps due to inherent biology.
I have no idea if this is true. Moreover, I don't think it
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
complete with positive and negative controls? I'd rather take
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:08:14PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
complete with
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:10:45PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There is a massive difference between working assumption and
proven.
To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and henceforth to
refer to these arguments as proofs was, I believe, originally
referring to physics, but it
On 05 Mar 2004 13:21:24 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
1 - 100 of 293 matches
Mail list logo
