On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:01:59AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > In fairness he was responding to the Debian tabloid press, which > traditionally takes an event, removes all semblence of useful > information from it, and posts an inaccurate remark along with a URL > to something inappropriate. So his primary error was in believing what > you read in the tabloids. > > (In this specific instance, it looks like one of my offhand remarks > swatting down a non-argument, under the assumption that -legal > subscribers understand the context and other people have sense enough > to ask - right alongside four other posts with detailed > explanations. Gotta love tabloids).
If that's the case, then Bruce should learn to check his sources and discover the arguments; and once he's done so, to present his arguments as arguments, and not decrees. I wouldn't have grunted about it, except that it's happened before, in precisely the same way: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg00061.html -- Glenn Maynard
