I wrote:
> "Z rejoices in the flames that his posts
> inspire", which is more or less the factual content of "Z's posts are
> trolls" [1] ...
Whoops, left out Footnote 1, which is my own take on the same topic as
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html :
FWIW, the origin of this usage o
On 8/15/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That does not extend to permit a group to go around making accusations
> and advocating that other people do something based on those
> accusations. In the real world, this is a tort, specifically
> defamation of character. And benefit of the
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:25:36AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> That does not extend to permit a group to go around making accusations
> and advocating that other people do something based on those
> accusations.
Yes Andrew, we know you think we're all idiot lemmings who believe everything
we'r
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:56:32AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >> Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile
> >> you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to
>
[Andrew Suffield]
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile
>> you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to
>> collectively killfile you.
>
> So what you're saying is that mob rule is accep
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile
> you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to
> collectively killfile you.
So what you're saying is that mob rule is acceptable to you.
I think that
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:22:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > My response is simply
> > this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
> > evidence.
>
> So far (three days) we've had one person try, and
* Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050813 12:30]:
> That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means, here. Are you
> saying that this principle does not hold?
No, it does not hold. This principle does not even hold in court,
but only for criminal offences.
So until we are discussing about a
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:24:23PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >>Descending to your flawed level of rhetoric,
> >
> > What are the flaws?
>
> The flaw is that of projection: assuming that silence means everyone
> agrees with you.
That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means, here. Are you
Anibal Monsalve Salazar writes:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>Andrew Suffield writes:
>>>On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who
thinks otherwise to present evidence
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>Andrew Suffield writes:
>>On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>>My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who
>>>thinks otherwise to present evidence.
>>
>>So far (three days) we've had on
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> My response is simply
> >> this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
> >> evidence.
> >
> > So far (three
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> My response is simply
>> this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
>> evidence.
>
> So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I
> explained every case. I t
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> My response is simply
> this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
> evidence.
So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I
explained every case. I think that says a lot for the accura
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:32:16PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> 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 goin
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
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 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 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
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The (hardly infrequent) existence of absolutely pointless flamewars
> where Andrew is a major participant despite contributing approximately
> nothing of any use suggests that we don't handle the negative aspects
> well at all.
Well, I was only referin
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> attention been a freedom other people enjoy? And if I wish to share
> my kill file details with the public, why is it OK to censor _me_,
> and deny me the freedom of so sharing my killfile?
It is not... I was pointing out that if one has a pledge t
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:34:57PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> It's one thing to say "the guy's an idiot, I ignore his mails, I
> advise you do likewise." It's another to say "the guy's a blight on
> the project, I think he'll go away if enough of us ignore him, who
> will pledge with me to
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:26:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> There comes a point where the negative aspects of someone's
> contributions grossly outweigh the positive ones. Andrew contributes
> very little of any direct benefit to the project, but has a talent for
> stimulating pointless argu
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:00:19PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> In my oppinion that is because most people
> try to fit in, cooperate and get along on their own or at least
> listen to their peers when they are asked to do so.
Well then maybe you should try doing that, instead of attacking tho
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:07:54AM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 8/9/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > is: think for yourself, and consider the sources of what you think you
> > know. How accurate is it *really*? What do you find when you look at
> > the things which actual
* Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050810 08:34]:
> > I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this
> >crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far.
> >...
> You started this thread with "Re:" in the subject but you are quoting
> nobody and I can't find th
Debian is a technical project and a social group/community. We
have the nm process to help people to become well versed for the
technical challanges. We dont yet have a social nm process and
dont need it mostly. In my oppinion that is because most people
try to fit in, cooperate and get along on th
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There comes a point where the negative aspects of someone's
>> contributions grossly outweigh the positive ones. Andrew contributes
>
> Oh? As far as I can see, we have handled the 'negative as
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this
crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far.
...
You started this thread with "Re:" in the subject but you are quoting
nobody and I can't find the beginning of this
On 8/9/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fail to follow this. Ultimately, killfiling is a personal
> decision. If a bunch of people are all of one mind over kill filing
> someone, how does it affect the reputation of rational discourse?
> Since when have I bee
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:30:03 -0700, Michael K Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, quite. First they came for those who gratuitously insulted
>> people on the lists; then they came for the ones who posted
>> diatribes about RMS's occupat
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:21:07 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Nobody has proposed censoring Andrew. People are simply stating
>> that they will stop listening to him. Would you deny them that
>> freedom?
> Do that quit
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:08:02 -0700, Michael K Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The notion of a "pledge to killfile" Andrew is thoroughly juvenile.
> I am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of
> negatively critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I
> would be horrified
On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, quite. First they came for those who gratuitously insulted people on
> the lists; then they came for the ones who posted diatribes about RMS's
> occupation on -legal; then they came for you, and... oh wait, they already
> got you, didn't
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nobody has proposed censoring Andrew. People are simply stating that
> they will stop listening to him. Would you deny them that freedom?
Do that quitely, then. A public motion to killfile someone is a public
statement, and that's how it should be tak
On 8/9/05, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The notion of a "pledge to killfile" Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
> > am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
> > critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists;
Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The notion of a "pledge to killfile" Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
> am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
> critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I would be
> horrified to see him censored.
Nobody has
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:08:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The notion of a "pledge to killfile" Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
> am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
> critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I would be
> horrified to see him c
The notion of a "pledge to killfile" Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I would be
horrified to see him censored. Surely, even if every unkind thing I
have seen written about him w
On 8/9/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is: think for yourself, and consider the sources of what you think you
> know. How accurate is it *really*? What do you find when you look at
> the things which actually happened?
That's sage advice. However, mako stated: "If you read the De
I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this
crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far.
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 t
42 matches
Mail list logo
