On Wednesday 14 October 2009 05:41, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

@ Peter

> Peter Geirnaert wrote:
> > This topic is pissing in my eyes and it begins to hurt.

The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind.  If Ralf has a right to 
fill the list with posts that are off-topic (ie don't relate to the distro as 
released) and full of throwaway half-truths, then I have an equal right to 
call him out on them.

If you aren't happy with that, you could consider doing what others have 
suggested I do with Ralf's posts - send me direct to trash. 

> > Free software, but don't be too free with it. Be like this with it,
> > and not like that.

Please go to the website of the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) 
and read up on Stallman's definition of "free as in freedom".

Does "free" mean that individuals or groups should be free to ignore 
well-established community behavioural norms?
No.
Does "free" mean that individuals or proprietary companies should be free to 
tell lies about free software?
No.

With freedom comes responsibility.

I have absolutely *no* objection to Ralf doing whatever he likes with his 
installation - that is his prerogative.  What I object to is his writing long 
screeds here about issues of his own making (eg setting up chroots), and 
using them as a platform to throw in offhand remarks about how terrible Linux 
audio is.


@ Ralf

I think it's significant that once you were called out on specific falsehoods 
or issues with your posts, you *immediately* descend to name-calling.

If you were *really* interested in Linux audio, as you purport to be, you 
would have put your hand up in relation to your lie about "Linux is no good 
for professional video", and admitted, "Sorry, I got that wrong, and I won't 
say that again".  But you didn't.  It's as if you feel you have a right to 
tell everyone, at inordinate length, the first thing that comes into your 
head, even if it's a palpable untruth, and get annoyed when someone tells you 
that isn't proper.  With that attitude, I don't see how we can take anything 
you say about your system's hardware or software seriously.

Or in relation to your "there's a problem every month with QTractor" - did you 
find anyone other than yourself with a "problem"?  If not, you have cast a 
totally unjust slur against Rui and the program he has spent hours of his 
life on.  But do you own up to that?  No.  Do you say, "Yup, sorry - I was 
wrong again - it seems it's something in my own setup that is causing the 
problem".  No - instead you create FUD by slagging off the program.  Rui 
*may* help you work out your specific issue, because it *may* affect other 
users (if any have come forward), but that doesn't give you the right to do a 
hatchet job on the app in the meantime.

I could give other examples, but I won't bore people.

> Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> > On a language software list last month, one poster was actually banned
> > because of the tone of her posts
>
> To ban me won't help, because Bill pays me for FUD. I would use tor
> networks, hack email accounts, do anything to subscribe again by using a
> new name (hard work), to give new users a bad impression. Because I
> belong to a conspiracy to kill off FLOSS.

Your posts haven't (yet) descended as far as hers (thought the QTractor one is 
coming close), so if you display some common courtesy and exercise some 
self-restraint I don't see why anyone on the list would object to your 
posting.  But that courtesy and self-restraint has been conspicuously lacking 
in the past, in spite of several suggestions about it.

Incidentally, doing the things you suggest would of course blow your cover, so 
you would lose whatever shreds of credibility you have left.

> Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> > One of
> > the reasons the list moderator gave was that this gave a bad impression
> > of the community to new users.
>
> Another reason to burn a witch is malignant narcissism. Only a malignant
> narcissist is able to imagine that one person could distort the
> impression that other people will get about a community and because of
> this agitate that this person needs to be punished.

Hmm.  "Malignant narcissist" is a new term to me, but had I been aware of it I 
would certainly have used it in my previous post - as the saying goes: "it 
takes one to know one".

Are you seriously trying to argue that it is alright for someone to tell 
half-truths on one posting after another (your earlier volumes have various 
others that I let pass because I couldn't be bothered - no longer), and that 
these committals to public record will not "distort the impression" of 
readers?  I'm afraid the bad news is that you have little hope of getting a 
job in a public relations firm.

And there is no mileage to be had in adopting an air of injured innocence 
("punished").  I asked you politely to post less and stay on-topic.  You 
ignored that, as you have ignored requests from other people on this and 
other lists in the past.  When I pointed out particular issues with just one 
of the excessive posts you made, you ignored them too and resorted to 
name-calling.  Who exactly is being punished here?

> Sometimes, when I don't write for about a week, I trap penguins because
> we need their blood for black masses.

Your private religious practices are of no concern to me.

-- 
Pob hwyl / Best wishes

Kevin Donnelly

www.cymraeg.org.uk - Welsh-English autotranslator
www.eurfa.org.uk - Geiriadur rhydd i'r Gymraeg
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

Reply via email to