> >> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without > >> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"? > >> > > >> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment > >> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
> >On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can > >> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this > >> theory? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >So you say that I was talking about pretending? Which part of what I > >wrote justifies this interpretation? On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 02:09:22AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > You wrote "the latter case forces us to not ignore [non-free software > running on a system]". To me, this implies that in the other cases you > deliberately choose to ignore it. You haven't answered the question I was asking. I asked what part of what I wrote justifies the claim that I was talking about pretending? Maybe I should have instead asked "where is there?". If I ignore something as a part of a system when that thing is outside that system, there doesn't need to be any pretending. If I have a house, and I say "the sun is outside my house", and someone else says "no, the sun is inside your house because I can see sunlight in your house", I am safe in ignoring this "sun is inside my house" idea. There is no need to pretend. I asked you to point out what part of what I wrote justified your "pretend" interpretation, and you have not answered. Instead, you have talked about me deliberately ignoring something. But ignoring, or disregarding, is not the same thing as pretending, or giving a false appearance. If you are willing to grant that your quip had nothing to do with what I said, I'm willing to drop this issue. Otherwise, please be more specific in your answer. Thanks, -- Raul
