Forwarding to the ML because I messed up the recipient.

On February 15, 2018 4:21:03 AM GMT+03:00, Fungal-net 
<> wrote:
>If you are officially representing Devuan and "a long email" described
>why Devuan should not be trusted, I'd say it is your problem the
>inability to read and understand the technical content.  If you are
>really unable to understand the technical content of this "long email"
>then you are definetely the wrong person to be "officially" responding.
What technical content?
>What else is there to say?  If I no longer trust devuan for the very
>specific reasons and evidence I have provided why would I have a
>technical problem and if I did why would I trust you to help me with
What exact evidence? Please, I must be fscking stupid, explain it in simple 
>Your response is every proof I needed that there is something fishy
>going on.  It may be legal to be deceiving people but the question is
>whether it is ethical and whether once you discover a rat are you
>responsible to make the discovery public.  That is the dilemma.   There
>is nothing technical about it!
You're free to conspire until the end of time mate, it doesn't change the fact 
that it's still bullsh!t.

-- --
I am awake between 3AM-8PM UTC, HMU if the site's broken

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Dng mailing list

Reply via email to