Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read Jeremy's message as suggesting that whether something was the > preferred form of modification for the author was more important than > whether or not it was modifiable by anyone else.
Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a "just" or some "reasonably"s into it to help you, but it looks fairly clear from the original context what narrow aspect he was looking at. Remember, your previous intervention Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> only considered one question 'Is the JPEG your "source"?' from David Schmitt's list of questions. *You* specialised the subthread, so you shouldn't start playing people offside by regeneralising it. Further, your definition of source code in Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is full of lawyerbombs and looks unworkable, apart from possibly causing a PR disaster by blanket-banning machine code sources from main if you mean one reasonably possible interpretation. > Having gone back and > reread it, I still interpret that way. If that interpretation was wrong, > then I wholeheartedly apologise. Given that he's already asked you "Are you willfully refusing to understand what I said", I don't see how you can reasonably still claim that your representation of him was accurate. Again, I am seriously worried that I agree with Andrew Suffield. :-/ -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
