On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main,
why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug
help, and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform
says that We
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main,
why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug
help, and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform
says that We
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and
the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is
self justification or off topic crap.
In principle I agree with Craig. The arguments over non-free are just
plain stupid.
There is no contradiction
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:01:41PM +0100, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about
Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The
non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our
definition of free,
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and
the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is
self justification or off topic crap.
In principle I agree with Craig. The arguments over non-free are just
plain stupid.
There is no contradiction
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:01:41PM +0100, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about
Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The
non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our
definition of free,
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:35:47 +0100
Sender: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are not able to understand what Free software
means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty
non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you
for choosing one of
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
need GNU FDL.
# #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package:
glibc;
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:32:59 -0600
From: Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On
Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and
I will
Mikko Moilanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you cant understand what means
4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean
time too.
Of course. And I believe that the long-term interests of our users
are not
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:35:47 +0100
Sender: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are not able to understand what Free software
means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty
non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you
for choosing one of
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:32:59 -0600
From: Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On
Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and
I will
Mikko Moilanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you cant understand what means
4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean
time too.
Of course. And I believe that the long-term interests of our users
are not
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You may (or may not) be interested in:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
Well, I am interested about subject and so I will read available
information. Conversation about subject is over from me untill I have
catched up.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
close to being free it was
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, for some values of actually free, anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and Z.?
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what Free software means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. There
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong.
...which is why you felt compelled to quote me
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago
in Debian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have you
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
close to being free it was at the time.
Well, for some values of actually free, anyway.
#
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
close to being free it was
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, for some values of actually free, anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and Z.?
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what Free software means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. There
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong.
...which is why you felt compelled to quote me
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
need GNU FDL.
[...]
Declare it
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago
in Debian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have you
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:33:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and
grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for
me to make any complaint about
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something
bad--does not justify your use of language.
i'll use any fucking language i like, whether you like it or not.
and the more you try to tell me i do not
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:35:43PM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something
bad--does not justify your use of language.
i'll use any fucking language i like,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
I
On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems
with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. [...]
Acutally, it seems common that debian
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to
make the meek feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up.
Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek.
If someone
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you
don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life.
Craig,
It
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying
and outrageously abusive language.
No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
thread is both more
hi ted, craig,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Craig,
snip
Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of
discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that
they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested
in doing anything
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to
complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to
complain about your pedantic idiocy.
Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic.
But
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
something about it - unfortunately
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if
you don't like some of the words
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ]
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
similarly, it's impossible to enforce a
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
slanderous. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should
probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which
simply uses Anthony's name
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
slanderous.
The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive
way of having a conversation.
For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot.
Indeed, it's almost a tradition...
-Miles
--
I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task.
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about real issues, not pedantic non-events -- unacceptable?
He can make whatever requests he wants,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested
in doing anything
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:01:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This is exactly what I mean when I say that the compromise embedded in
section 5 of the SC has broken down. That compromise allows for
non-free to be hosted on Debian, but also says it is not a part of
Debian.
Again, it
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:33:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and
grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for
me to make any complaint about
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something
bad--does not justify your use of language.
i'll use any fucking language i like, whether you like it or not.
and the more you try to tell me i do not
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
On 2004-03-11 08:24:49 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you are also elevating the significance of something YOU claim not to
like
(swearing) to the status of Universal Truth
I suspect far more people dislike swearing. Subscribers are even asked
not to use foul language on
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
being stupid in public isn't polite, either, but it doesn't stop most people.
QED.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's not intentional, and please correct
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you
asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and
refuse to do the same, playing on the confusion.
And now that you are aware of that, please
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you
asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and
refuse to do the same,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:59:26AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you
asked us, me and aj nominally, to
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:18:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems
with
Mr Troup or Why
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to
make the meek feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up.
Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek.
If someone
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you
don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a
life.
Craig,
It
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying
and outrageously abusive language.
No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null.
--
- mdz
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
thread is both
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
wrong. i will say what i please when i please.
Which pretty much adresses your point about getting people to STFU.
--
Raul
hi ted, craig,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Craig,
snip
Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of
discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that
they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested
in doing anything
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 00:14, Craig Sanders wrote:
but i forget - certain words in the English language are allegedly beyond the
pale, they are a magically perfect excuse for ignoring the actual substance of
what someone has to say and to instead concentrate on whining about a few
choice
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:22:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
pedantic
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with
Mr Troup or Why Anthony
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to
complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to
complain about your pedantic idiocy.
Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic.
But
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
something about it - unfortunately
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's
debatable, but the let's make everything better for the meek program
just isn't relevant to it.
Debatable? The mailing list policy prohibits swearing.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if
you don't like some of the words
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ ]
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
similarly, it's impossible to enforce a
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't make me laugh... the extent of the acceptance and enforcement of the
mailing list code of conduct is common knowledge.
Sure, but we have recently identified and discussed that many people
would like Debian to be more welcoming to people who have
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
slanderous. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should
probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which
simply uses Anthony's name
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
slanderous.
The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive
way of having a conversation.
For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits
saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward
assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*.
Uh, no, it's not: it's a
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot.
Indeed, it's almost a tradition...
-Miles
--
I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task.
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:30:03AM +, Adam Majer wrote:
I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in Canada,
a few years ago one of the provinces thought it would be a good idea to
separate so there was a big referendum in that province. The separatists
lost, but
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet
it's there on the ballot.
So?
Maybe
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it.
You first.
Fortunately, Swears like a sailor Sanders is not the most reasoned
of the keep-non-free supporters.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up
about this subject. that's it.
I guess it's been
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
suggestion that it would be good if people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ]
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
