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 this discussion with your personal abuse > against them. Who is exactly is trying to berate the opposition into > silence and then claim they hold the consensus opinion, exactly?
Yes, and i hadn't entered in it, would you have claimed consensus that the QPL was non-free without even examining the real hard facts ? Already i have seen the problem shifting from 6c to 3b since i intervened here, and some strongly believed things put in doubt. And anyway, even if i disagred, often violently i agree, this didn't give you the right to to start this thread, especially as i started the more reasonable one and had somewhat cooled down. And again, even if this is all a recreation for you, it is much less than funny for me, and i think i am owned the respect to at least not hear arguments which obviously have no basis in what is actually written in the licence text. Friendly, Sven Luther
