I'M NOT MEMER OF YOUR MAILING LISTS. MY MAIL IS : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED] IS ONLY FORWARD FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
WHY THIS MAILS COME TO ME?
EVERY DAY COME TO ME 200 MAILS FROM YOUR MAILING LISTS.
CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WITH IT?
THANK YOU.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
> On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:43 am, David Wright wrote:
> > I'll ignore the ad hominem. How about a poll at debianplanet?
> >
> > ( ) No architecture should move forward untill all can move
> > forward together.
> >
> > ( ) i386 and PPC should take priority; other architectures
> > can follow when they're ready.
> >
> > I guess you're confident that the second option would only get 2 votes.
>
> ad hominem? since you obviously need to re-read this, here you go:
>
>
> so your argument is that because debian isn't going in the direction that
you
> want, all other considerations should be abandoned? mounting criticism?
you
> adding your two cents to one other guy? as far as working with the
> maintainers to squash bugs, you seem to have 8 active bug reports but i
don't
> see where you worked with the maintainers to squash bugs beyond the
initial
> report. your collection of debian-centric whitepapers is a collection only
in
> the most minimalistic definition of the word in that it consists of two
basic
> installation advisories that hardly show evidence of anything near the
effort
> that the word maintain, in the context of debian, normally implies. since,
> apparently, none of the packages with which you are familiar requires your
> input, it does appear that your current capacity to contribute is limited
to
> providing this flamebait. do you really think that this, particularly
given
> the rude and condescending tone you adopt, is a valid productive
contribution?
>
>
> where's the ad hominem attack on you in the above? as it stands, since you
> haven't presented any valid justification for your ad hominem attack on
the
> maintainers, you might want to move away from that window.
>
> btw, do you want to shed any light on why your last post directed to me
was
> routed via hungary? or why the ip address for www.metaconsultancy.com
belongs
> to a block assigned to the university of washington? or why there are no
> client testimonial references at that site? after all, you did allege some
> manner of professionalism. i'm merely drawing your attention to the fact
that
> it can't be verified.
>
> ben
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
