Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, if you want to bring up specifics, you can. But you (and Bradley)
> said some things that were provably false, and I proved them false.
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as in my opinion you didn't
prove anything, simply asserted that you disagreed, and you've already
raised the level of confrontation and vitriol in this discussion beyond
what I'm comfortable with and what I'm willing to deal with at the present
time. It's entirely possible that I'm just hypersensitive to this right
now, as I'm not in the right mood for even slightly heated discussions at
the moment, which probably indicates that I shouldn't be participating in
licensing discussions. For some annoying reason, they pretty much always
end up being heated.
I'll continue to comment on what other people have to say if I find things
that I want to say, but when two or three replies into a conversation
people are already coming across as heated, angry, and set in their
opinions, I doubt anything much will come of further discussion.
I guess I ran out of my emotional fervor on this topic several years ago,
and at this point it's just another engineering decision to me.
> You gave your educated opinion about the law, and I gave mine. But you
> and Bradley gave almost no specifics.
I've posted fairly detailed analyses of what I see as the flaws in the AL
in the past. The last time I did so, I was flamed and insulted for my
trouble, and given the *apparent* lack of willingness to even have a calm
and polite discussion of the topic (I have no idea what you're feeling as
I'm not a mind reader; I can only act on my perceptions), I'm just not
willing to go through that again. I'm sorry. I was assuming some general
familiarity with the common complaints about the AL.
Maybe someone else will be willing to pick up the ball and run with it.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
