On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > according to your particular degree of zealotry...but your zealotry is more > > intense than what was common when we wrote the DFSG, so it's entirely > > possible > > that even crazier lunatics will arrive in the future (encouraged, no doubt, > > by > > the "successes" of the current crop of loonies). > > Okay, since you refuse to converse civilly, without constantly throwing around > "zealot", "lunatic" and "loonies", I'm not going to converse with you. (I > don't really have to, since your flaming rants aren't convincing anyone, and > I've never expected to convince you directly.)
a lame excuse for dropping out of an argument that you're losing. > Once you understand that people can, in fact, rationally disagree with > you, you might have more success in debate. yes, it's possible to disagree with me without being a loony or a zealot or a fuckwit or a moron. honest disagreements are possible (and even common). in this particular case, however, i've observed the lunacy of the principle anti-GFDL zealots over a number of years. "lunatic" IS a valid and accurate description. they are, for the most part, the same lunatics who regularly try to have the non-free archives deleted. their behaviour is entirely consistent with the theory that they are motivated by the desire to prove themselves Holier Than Stallman. they are the free-software world's equivalent of fundamentalist religious fanatics - i.e. zealots. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
