MJ Ray writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> How else should I consider a mail that simply declares "Troll."? Do
>> you think it is not rude? Or was the point of the brevity something
>> besides saving yourself the effort of justifying the judgment?
>
> I thought that pro-a
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> How else should I consider a mail that simply declares "Troll."? Do
> you think it is not rude? Or was the point of the brevity something
> besides saving yourself the effort of justifying the judgment?
I thought that pro-active anti-troll interve
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I reject this notion that communication is a popularity contest.
But if other people don't accept your rejection of the notion then it
won't do you any good will it? Well, we can only go around in circles on
this point so I'll just stop here. G
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:02:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ian Murdock wrote:
> >What does that mean exactly, "to talk to Debian"? The DPL is in
> >the loop, plus a dozen or more Debian developers that work for the
> >participating organizations.
>
> Which is to say, no one outside the parti
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:09:09PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I've no grudge against David Nusinow, but rather than
> using this expression being parroted around debian,
> aimed at various different people, maybe you should take
> a really long, hard try at writing a more original post?
> http://www.ch
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:50:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
>> explanation at length.
>
> When you start making accusations, you are obliged to back them up
> with explanations. Otherwise you are m
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rather than spending your time dismissing this situation as some
> cabal-like conspiracy by a small group of people, maybe you should take a
> really long, hard look at your behavior and ask yourself "Why me?"
I've no grudge against David Nusinow, but r
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > You're a smart guy Andrew (definitely smarter than me)
>
> Now half a dozen people are going to claim I have a superiority
> complex, because of something that I di
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:50:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
> explanation at length.
When you start making accusations, you are obliged to back them up
with explanations. Otherwise you are merely denying any right to
respond
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the
> > past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been
> > putting around this
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 12:42:37PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Looks like a perfectly justified response to me.
>
> Which is the basic problem isn't it? Communication involves not only how
> responses look to oneself but how they look to othe
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Looks like a perfectly justified response to me.
Which is the basic problem isn't it? Communication involves not only how
responses look to oneself but how they look to other people.
There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech. Ju
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the
> past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been
> putting around this notion that I generally write flames, trolls,
> put-downs, whatever you
Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
explanation at length.
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:08:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>> > My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks
>> > oth
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:08:05AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks
> > otherwise to present evidence. I sign almost all my outgoing mails;
> > this should be easy, if it were true. Find mails from
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:09:35PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 03:23:18PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Did you not read my original ma
16 matches
Mail list logo
