Sven Luther writes: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: >> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a >> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to >> actually engage him in conversation. > > So, you are clearly not interested in solving this issue, just in making > claims that the QPL is non-free, without even bothering to read the document, > and discardying off hand all interpretations that don't match your own.
You are clearly not interested in solving this issue, just in making claims that the QPL is free, without even bothering to read the objections, and discarding out of hand all interpretations that don't match your own. > Please, i started a new thread, where i provided a clear for for for analysis > of the QPL, and identified the individual points which where coming into > discussion, and started subthreads for each of them with my interpretation of > them. If you feel like discussing this, in a way that leads to a resolution of > this in a timely fashion, then you are welcome to it, if not please don't > bother concerning yourself with the QPL in the ocaml case, since your > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you > has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus. Pot, meet kettle. Michael Poole
