ma, 2006-01-30 kello 13:39 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti:
> i'll behave as i please.
>
> if you don't like my words, then don't read them - kill file me if you
> feel it's necessary.
Nobody has the right to be personally insulting on Debian lists. It
would certainly be possible to express concer
Craig Sanders wrote:
> as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several
> other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require
> modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example.
As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > >
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
Craig,
I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
not with insults and shouting.
Respectfully,
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ /
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
>
> Craig,
>
> I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
> not with insults and shouting.
no, the truth is
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several
> > other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require
> > modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example.
>
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
> > imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences
> > which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
> >
> > Craig,
> >
> > I'm willing to debate whatever you want to
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again.
>
> Nice of you to admit you're just reheating year-old crap.
> Here, I'll save the trouble of one post/debunk cycle:
> "you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> "you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so
> by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds
> to the invariant section." (Craig Sanders, January 2005)
> vs
> "If it is modified, it does not do its
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because the constitution does not specify a standard for sanity or
> rationality. It may be *irrational* for the project to claim that the GFDL
> with invariant sections meets the DFSG's requirements, and the passing of
> such a GR might leave me with
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether
> you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is
> inappropriate on Debian mailing lists.
Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the sta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether
>> you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is
>> ina
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
> recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
> some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. We
> can't continue like this for long. This sort
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1
> > supermajority requirement.
>
> The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the
> 3:1 requirement if applied in some other cases.
Not necessarily
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> > but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1
>> > supermajority requirement.
>>
>> The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the
>> 3:1 requirem
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
> > > not with insults a
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or
> any kind of civilised discourse.
I wish Craig would stop posting rather than spending time telling us
how useless his posts are.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
Roger Leigh
> I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
> recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
> some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...]
You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2]
to the point
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code
> of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce.
> Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban
> didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes
* MJ Ray [Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:25:48 +]:
> to the point where he recoils from the project[3], don't answer
Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are
you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]?
> 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or
> any kind of civilised discourse.
So ... Why don't you just stop the flaming, if there's no point anyway?
I have the feeling that this would somehow improve the climate of the
discu
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:10:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > I'm willing to debate w
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to
> twist [...]
oh look, it's yet another wind up doll - how cute.
how long did it take to train you? can you do other tricks?
there does seem to be a lot of t
Hi folks,
A new amendment has made it in to the GR _after_ the two week
discussion deadline. If there are other people mulling proposals for
amendments to the GR, now is the time -- if submissions keep coming
in at two week intervals, voting on this GR can be delayed almost
indefinitel
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in Germany Lehmann's sell
> >> cups with Emacs or vi commands on them. You can't add a second cup
> >> for the invariant sections, even if they fit
26 matches
Mail list logo
