On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> And the definition is so broad that I easily fall into it. Hoffman may or >> may not, but it really isn't your place to decide. They have the >> listmasters for a reason, you know. > >The term "Developers" in Debian is a formal one, not an accidental >one. The Debian Constitution carefully specifies it.
One you're misusing, BTW. The http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe definition however includes "experienced users" Development lists There are several lists on which developers and experienced users discuss more technical issues. In addition, there are some announcement lists to help experienced users keep track of development. The Constitution, however, says nothing about the lists at all except some language requiring a given issue deal with a given list. Am I missing a trumping document? Is there some documentation for your claim that Debina mailinglists are for the exclusive use of DD's? >I have some very good friends who are not US Citizens. Is it bad for >me to mention that when a relevant case comes up? They don't get to It is when you lord it over them. Do you often say of your Cuban friends "You're not a friend of the US"? Do you often castigate your non-US friends when they talk about ancillary-to-US topics like how to circumvent US law? In -legal, the GPL is just like US law: just because we abide by the law doesn't mean that we have to stay silent when somebody asks how to avoid prosecution. >vote; they don't get to sit on juries, etc. Is it bad for me to >mention this? Is it bad for the US to have certain privileges and >responsibilities of citizenship which it doesn't share with >"nonmembers"? Only when official representatives push their status. If you told an illegal immigrant "ha ha, I can vote and you can't" and the immigrant beat all hell out of you, I really wouldn't think that many people would say that you didn't get exactly what you deserved. >> Perhaps my name is, but the rest of the information on it is not. > >Then, pray tell, what's the name? Occupant >> You really ought to do some more reading before you attribute anonymity >> with shame. > >Sometimes anonymity is quite reasonable. I can think of a jillion >cases where it is a good thing. The ability to have anonymous >communication on the net is something I'm a stalwart defender of. ...except when you can't refute the anonymous people's arguments and you go into _ad hominem_ mode. You AREN'T a stalwart defender, you're a fair weather friend of anonymity at best. >But that doesn't mean that each and every case of anonymity is good. >Often it is harmful. I assume of course that you have ready citations for this? >> I'm sorry: what's normal about insisting that someone isn't who they say >> they are? > >Um, let's try. Is your legal name John Galt? Is that "who you say >you are"? I say and have said for quite a while on this list (and most other mailinglists I subscribe to) that I'm John Galt. If that is not a good enough answer then tough. >It's an obvious pseudonym, but it's possible that it's a real name >too. That's why I asked, and you replied that you were using a >psedonym. So what's your name? John Galt, for all you will ever know. -- I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own decisions. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
