On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:23:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Sven's messages are constantly and deliberately laced with derision and > > > insults--in almost *every* message he posts. Perhaps returning it with > > > > So, please show me the derision and insults in the serious thread i started > > later ? > > Too late for some people.
Too bad for them, and good ridance anyway. > > And do you not think that making half-backed assertion is not an > > insult to the inteligence of both the contributors here, and the upstream > > author whose licence you are discussing. > > You say that so often, but I'm having trouble coming up with instances in > which you have shown how, precisely, the arguments raised are half-baked. > There's no shortage of instances of you saying that arguments are bogus (or > worse), but reasoned rebuttals aren't exactly universal. Ah, reread those threads, mostly i first reply, and my arguments are discarded, and the original point i was refutting reasserted as if i had not spoken. Other case are where i present arguments and it is simply ignored and more chinese dissident nonsense is sputted. And finally there are those cases where the argument is obviously in discord with what is written in the QPL library, and when i point this out, i get a response reasserting the original point, and no hint that the author even went over the exact point again. > > > and less derisive and condescending than Sven's behavior towards all of > > > us. > > > > Well, if your argumentation has been upto it, maybe i wouldn't have needed > > to be so condescending, but this was clearly not the case. > > Perhaps you could enlighten us with your obvious wisdom and show us how our Because i did reread the QPL, and had it under my eyes while posting. Because i have not a reputation to uphold and doesn't want to give the impression i may have been wrong with the original and hasty "the QPL is non-free" consensus. > argumentation could be improved, rather than simply calling us ignorant? Then show me you are not. > You know, showing benevolence to the little people and all that. Sure, but what about reciprocity. You showed me none of it here, so ... > > You know debian-legal has some extreme power in debian, power only matched > > by > > the RM and the ftp-masters, since concensus here will mean almost-automatic > > removal of a package from the archive without much way to change it. With > > this > > Bullshit. No debian-legal regular (AFAIK) has power to remove stuff from Debian-legal advice the ftp-masters and the RM, and i have it from a direct quote from one of the ftp-masters if i remember well, that they usually follow the consensus of debian-legal. > the archive, so we're down to making a summary and petitioning ftpmasters > with that. If our arguments are thoroughly unconvincing, then the summary > will be laughed at and discarded. Well, do you have any data on how often the advice is followed over when it is rejected ? > > And you don't think that my behavior was a direct consequence of the way > > debian-legal operate, and the sub-par decision process you have here ? > > Cool. Blaming us for being abused. Thanks. Whatever. I was angry, and didn't like to be pulled in this mess, and had bad experience from past debian-legal participation. I should not have gone over the board like i did, but i apologized for that, and hope it will not happen again. I also started a clean thread which i hope is more constructive. But do you believe your own participation was irreaprochable ? What about the one of the rest of the debian-legal folk ? It is easy to blame all the fault on me, just because i am an outsider here. Friendly, Sven Luther
