On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in
the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours.
I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who),
in December.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For example, after I proposed removing the Linux specific wording in
the social contract, you introduced the same kind of change in yours.
I did that following the suggestion of somebody on IRC (I forget who),
in December.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:14:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to
pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating,
but at present the above paragraph is simply false.
Here you have implied that problems are
In case the above is too abstract for you, I'll break it down:
[a] Some people use software from the non-free of our archives.
[b] That software would cease to be available in future versions of debian.
[c] Upgrading that software becomes a problem when it's not available.
[d] Dpkg
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:14:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's true that if your resolution passed we would need to
pass further resolutions to fix the problem you're creating,
but at present the above paragraph is simply false.
Here you have implied that problems are
Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
Debian's Free Software Requirements, rather than merely being
guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of you lying.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying,
Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
Debian's Free Software Requirements, rather than merely being
guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of you lying.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of
15 matches
Mail list logo
