On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
> > I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
> > concrete examples.
>
> The only 'example' I can h
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 15:53]:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
> > and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
> > examples.
> Why is it that you think I said *you* were not h&e?
> (and I don't expect you to answer that here, bu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:53:00PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that
> > I am not honest and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some
> > concrete examples.
>
> The only 'example' I can h
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-12 15:53]:
> > Furthermore, I'd like to hear why you think that I am not honest
> > and enthusiastic, and ideally I'd like to see some concrete
> > examples.
> Why is it that you think I said *you* were not h&e?
> (and I don't expect you to answer that here, bu
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> > My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> > about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> > share that vision unabashedly with anyon
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:25:47PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> > My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> > about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> > share that vision unabashedly with anyon
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> share that vision unabashedly with anyone who will listen.
>
> What I'm seeing (again) from the two mainstream ca
* Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-11 15:24]:
> My concern is that we find a DPL who is *honest* and *enthusiastic*
> about the future they see for the project and who is prepared to
> share that vision unabashedly with anyone who will listen.
>
> What I'm seeing (again) from the two mainstream ca
Hallo, Andy
Thank You for Your kind and patient answer. I'll think about
possibilities of trying testing release.
It couldn't harm if there'll be some easier-to-install, quite functional
testing, however :o)
The most problems I have had were: freezing installer, unresolvable ways
of installe
Hallo, Andy
Thank You for Your kind and patient answer. I'll think about
possibilities of trying testing release.
It couldn't harm if there'll be some easier-to-install, quite functional
testing, however :o)
The most problems I have had were: freezing installer, unresolvable ways
of installer
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> > > stream of unacceptable noise.
> > Sorr
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> > stream of unacceptable noise.
>
> Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
> Craig, or
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that he has ever done for the project?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> > > stream of unacceptable noise.
> > Sorr
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> > stream of unacceptable noise.
>
> Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
> Craig, or
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that he has ever done for the project?
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And yet still its not short enough to already know your preference for
> a public flogging over any exercise involving self restraint.
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise. If we want to make Debian
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:22:27AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I've drunk to excess in biker pubs before, but I
> think the important part of what what Manoj was inferring was:
> Keep it in texas dude. (and if he wasn't then I am)
>
> That goes double for the 'baby kissing' bandwidth
> Branden writes:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:06:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
> > minded, bigoted group.
> >
> > Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
> > enough to be able to interact with
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And yet still its not short enough to already know your preference for
> a public flogging over any exercise involving self restraint.
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise. If we want to make Debian
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
>
> Yes.
>
> In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
> for] is the state of glibc:
>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:22:27AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I've drunk to excess in biker pubs before, but I
> think the important part of what what Manoj was inferring was:
> Keep it in texas dude. (and if he wasn't then I am)
>
> That goes double for the 'baby kissing' bandwidth
> Branden writes:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:06:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
> > minded, bigoted group.
> >
> > Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
> > enough to be able to interact with
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, for example, consider how --prefix= magically impacts what gets
> built.
Hrm; I guess I knew about that from the beginning because I had a role
in it, but you're right, that's an important bit of undocumented
magic.
Thomas
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
>
> Yes.
>
> In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
> for] is the state of glibc:
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
> > knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
> > designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
> > involve changing a few others ju
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, for example, consider how --prefix= magically impacts what gets
> built.
Hrm; I guess I knew about that from the beginning because I had a role
in it, but you're right, that's an important bit of undocumented
magic.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
> knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
> designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
> involve changing a few others just to a
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
> > knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
> > designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
> > involve changing a few others ju
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
for] is the state of glibc:
[1] Upstream sources generally are not buildable on older versions of the
t
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
> knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
> designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
> involve changing a few others just to a
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
for] is the state of glibc:
[1] Upstream sources generally are not buildable on older versions of the
t
I, being a man, am also scarried when interacting with Debian webpage or
mailing list. I'm not too confident about my skills, and I feel
something like "we know the way, please don't tell us Your opinion"
around Debian. Maybe I feel wrong, but if this is what does scare You
too, than maybe some
I, being a man, am also scarried when interacting with Debian webpage or
mailing list. I'm not too confident about my skills, and I feel
something like "we know the way, please don't tell us Your opinion"
around Debian. Maybe I feel wrong, but if this is what does scare You
too, than maybe some
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
> > #debian as a Project resource.
>
> Fair enough. Do you think that hosti
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
> > #debian as a Project resource.
>
> Fair enough. Do you think that hosti
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
> obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
> nothing to address?
>
Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian;
Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I
thank you for that but I must say you are engaging
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
> actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
> Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
> under-representation of women) as other systems
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
> >> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
> >> put me down or b
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
> obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
> nothing to address?
>
Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian;
Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I
thank you for that but I must say you are engaging
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
> actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
> Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
> under-representation of women) as other systems
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
> >> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
> >> put me down or b
Hi, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
>> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
>> > example of this.]
>>
Hi, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
>> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
>> > example of this.]
>>
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> > example of this.]
>
> Not really. IMHO the abuse was
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> > than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> > example of this.]
>
> Not really. IMHO the abuse was
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of
the discussion about James, and comp
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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 rationa
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
>> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
>> put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result.
>
> Are you assumi
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse
> than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent
> example of this.]
Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of
the discussion about James, and comp
Hi, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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 rationa
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost
>> certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may
>> put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result.
>
> Are you assumi
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
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
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
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
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 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 06:31:42PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
[lots of partially amusing but mostly silly text snipped]
> Ooooh! There's another idea! We can feed Gone with the Wind (iirc that
> was the title), th script of Titanic and other stuff to a megahal, put a
> tama frontend on it, dress i
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:31:42PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
[lots of partially amusing but mostly silly text snipped]
> Ooooh! There's another idea! We can feed Gone with the Wind (iirc that
> was the title), th script of Titanic and other stuff to a megahal, put a
> tama frontend on it, dress i
* 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 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:
>
>
* 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
[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
> Please at least quote the post you are responding to. You don't seem to
> have the proper headers set, at least mutt is not able to thread your
> posting. Thus, I am completely unable to tell what you are talking
> about.
> Michael
my bad, i was using a rather crippled mailer, and not my usual
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
> "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:
> 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
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 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.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
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:
>
>
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:09AM +, simon raven wrote:
> name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point,
> otherwise, instead of making up these weird arguments against
> something, how about partitcipating in the discussion instead of
> making up a totally irrelevant one?
[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
name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point, otherwise,
instead of
making up these weird arguments against something, how about partitcipating in
the
discussion instead of making up a totally irrelevant one?
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]
> "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
[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 Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:39:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
> >
> > Yes, very clever. And also very silly. When collated in large
> > numbers, anecdotes _do_ become data -- ask any psychologist or
> > sociologist.
>
> No, I refuse to accept
> Please at least quote the post you are responding to. You don't seem to
> have the proper headers set, at least mutt is not able to thread your
> posting. Thus, I am completely unable to tell what you are talking
> about.
> Michael
my bad, i was using a rather crippled mailer, and not my usual
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
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
> "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:
> 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
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 09:27:09AM +, simon raven wrote:
> name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point,
> otherwise, instead of making up these weird arguments against
> something, how about partitcipating in the discussion instead of
> making up a totally irrelevant one?
[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
name one where it didn't happen, and you'll actually make a point, otherwise, instead
of
making up these weird arguments against something, how about partitcipating in the
discussion instead of making up a totally irrelevant one?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject o
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 Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:39:22AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
> >
> > Yes, very clever. And also very silly. When collated in large
> > numbers, anecdotes _do_ become data -- ask any psychologist or
> > sociologist.
>
> No, I refuse to accept
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 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
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
1 - 100 of 332 matches
Mail list logo
