Lewis Jardine wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
can assure you it was not intentional. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to
find the subthread you are referring to.
My
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
can assure you it was not intentional. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to
find the subthread you are referring to.
My post may have been :
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the kind of thing I and Sven are talking about. There
is an implicit assumption here that an argument crafted over more than a
day or two must obviously be inferior to one that is spammed out from
the tip of
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:
Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
then claim consensus
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until
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*
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:52:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it
clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts
which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims
based on pure speculation.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
without moving, apart from relying
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced arguments
in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the
arguments i held there where responded.
I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
can assure
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
without moving, apart
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced
arguments
in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the
arguments i held there where responded.
I
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
*You've* driven three people out of this discussion with your
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
then claim consensus afterwards. They may just as well procede to say
that whoever
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes
you
has left in disgust, and you can claim
Sven Luther wrote:
I will ask upstream about this once they come back from vacations and have
them see if their legal team, even if bad, can offer us some answer. Maybe the
team working on the CECILL licence would also help here. What was the
conclusion of that discussion ? And if we don't
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
actually engage him in conversation.
So, you are clearly
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in
a
public mailing list. This way others can play along without
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably
in a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:35:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
*You've* driven three people out of this discussion with your personal abuse
against them. Who is exactly
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:17:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
*You've* driven three people out of
Because you might be overly intoxicated and/or hospitalized taking
drinks for everything Sven does, I suggest a simple case race is
probably about as much alcohol as you should ever consume at one time we
will forgive if you can't take all the drinks :)
Dan
Brian Nelson wrote:
Sven Luther
23 matches
Mail list logo
