On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:34:39PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> >and just as you don't cure quadraplegia by breaking the arms and legs of
> >healthy people, you don't cure meekness by making healthy people fearful &
> >timid.
>
> Nice analogy. It is indeed not the fault of able-bodied people th
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yes, bullying happens too. but meekness happens whether there is any actual
> bullying or not.
Meekness isn't harmful, nor does it ever justify your bullying.
Thomas
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > meekness isn't about bullying.
> >
> > it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> > it is a disability which varies in severity from
This is slightly OT for -project. MFT: set to -legal
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> So, as Kaffe is licensed under the GPL, the combination of Kaffe +
> Classpath must be licensed under the terms of the GPL (as per Kaffe's
> license). No exception for linking (a la Classpath) may b
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Is this just a game to you?
>
> I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ende
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:57:56PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Debian-legal didn't follow the interpretation of GPL of Etienne, another
> SableVM developer, the last time around, when he was asserting Kaffe
> being GPLd makes Java applications undistributable. Instead,
> debain-legal supported
From: Craig Sanders
meekness isn't about bullying.
it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
socially crippled..it is not the fault, or responsibility, of non-meek
people, any more t
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 01:36]:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; and
> helix tells me that this is how they are treated all the time
[...]
> However, #debian on irc.deb
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> > with it:
> >
> > "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. ...
...
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments.
If it's true tha
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:18:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I certainly won't tolerate it. It's fundamentally incompatible with
> getting any useful work done. Down that road leads political
> correctness (not just the word-substitution form), where you cannot
> say something that is true an
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> > babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> with it:
>
>
[Andrew Suffield]
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
"Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we
have an oran
Erinn,
> -- "Erinn Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 5 Mar 2004
02:19:29 -0500 said:
>
> If I may, here are three simple rules to follow when dealing with women:
> 1. Don't pander to us just because we're women.
> 2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
> 3. Don't insult us just because
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
> more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
> action based on your guess - go ahe
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That may be true. However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
> to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
> you seem to be asking for.
By no means would I ever say that the evidence isn't forthcoming.
I've seen it
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
> similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
> result. And even to take action based on that assumption. Or do you
> always wait for perfect information befo
[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix. I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel
FOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES
Dear Sirs,
Please consult us for:
International
Trade:
Oil & Gas operations, Petrochemicals and other Petroleum
products.
Industrial
Investments: Business planning
financing
Crude oil refineries, Chemical processing plants, Engineering,
Shipbuilding
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> > where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> > for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
[Andrew Suffield]
> Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> been
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:06:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
> >> > women in male do
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:26:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:58:03 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> > On Fri
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:39:17PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> With our underlying culture, I'm not sure if any attempts to change us will
> truly ever succeed in making us the caring, sharing, non-confrontational
> group that will make every person happy to work with us. Hell, if we become
> n
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
> > very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
> > we have a reason t
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> meekness isn't about bullying.
>
> it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
> socially crippled..it is not the fault
27 matches
Mail list logo
