On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:48:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I'd point out that now you have at least three or four times played > the "I won't respond to that" card. The rule is that once you play it > six times, you don't get to pretend to be debating anymore.
I don't recognize any such rule, furthermore I have not "played" any such "card" with you. > The fact that you've already played it several times Within what time period? I have made such an assertion with you, RMS, Anthony Towns, Henning Makholm, Sunnavind Fenderson, Scott Dier, or Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller. As far as I can recall, only Bernd Warken is having this trouble with his MUA. I tend to notice when I get CC'ed on list mail. (RMS CC'ed me as well, but that's fair because I dragged him into it, I don't think he subscribes to the list, and could not be expected to know if I do or not.) > suggests to me that you are getting frustrated, Please don't speculate as to someone's state of mind in what is supposed to be an argument on the merits, or project your own onto your opponent. > and that further discussion is unlikely to be beneficial at all. Only to the extent people are unwilling to refrain from employing logical fallacies, context-dropping, and simple disregard of mails that have already been sent on the subject. > Perhaps we need to take a couple weeks off, so people can sit and > think for a bit. But, then, I really don't think that's very likely. I suppose it is possible that we are talking past each other; in my experience this is often the result of conflicting but unidentified underlying assumptions. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. :) (I think I've been pretty frank, though, that I read the DFSG pretty narrowly; that I think supplementary material should be authored and maintained that helps serve as a repository of established decisions on the DSFG's occasional "gray areas" and the licenses that bring them to light; that such material may help us to determine ways in which the DFSG may need to be amended in the future; and that the works of no licensor or copyright holder, including the Free Software Foundation, should be granted special treatment. N.B., this last point is not the same thing as saying that a specific *work* may not be granted special treatment, a possibility my proposal leaves wide open. It just means that we shouldn't treat a work more generously "because it comes from the Free Software Foundation", or more strictly "because it comes from Microsoft". Personal biases will assert themselves anyway; we shouldn't codify them.) If you're tired of the argument, you are within your rights to oppose my proposal "just because." Are you just looking for an opportunity to withdraw gracefully, which apparently means belittling me on the way out with infantilizing remarks like "you are getting frustrated"? If that is the case, I suggest you follow the example of RMS, who simply expressed the fact that he didn't agree with me and didn't see any point in further discussion, and didn't season it with veiled insults (at least, none that I am clever enough to discern ;-) ). -- G. Branden Robinson | "To be is to do" -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpeMEAeCDlnV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
