> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:49:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > 1. i told you not to contact me again.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > This isn't evidence that John lied about anything. At best, it's evidence > > that he's not following your instructions. On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > for fuck's sake! i never said it was. Ok -- you gave that in response to a statement that you had not given any proof of John lying. I could only think of two possible meanings for the above "i told you" statement, and I addressed both of them. You've choosen to indicate that one of those two was not what you intended. > what the fuck is wrong with people in debian? In this case: ambiguity, and a lack of any rational argument to respond to. > it's no wonder that hardly anything ever gets done in this organisation, > everyone wastes time quibbling over stupid crap. If you don't like that, stop supplying stupid crap to quibble over. > > > 2. there was more in there than me just calling you a lying fuck. > > > there was also direct evidence of you lying. you conveniently ignored > > > that evidence. is this more lying, or is it mere stupidity? > > > > While there might be such evidence, I couldn't recognize it. > > it looks like i *do* have to point out the bleeding obvious. > > me: > : > > is this really the best that you can do? accuse anyone who is in > : > > favour of keeping non-free of wanting to pollute main with non-free > : > > stuff? oooh! what a scary bogeyman! > > Goerzen: > : > You yourself said that is what you would like to do. There is no need > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > : > for me to make the accusation. > > This is Goerzen lying by claiming that i said i want to pollute main with > non-free stuff. > > that is a lie. he is not miskenen or confused or misinformed. he is lying. > there is no basis for even mistakenly believing that claim, he lied simply to > make me and my position look bad by misrepresenting it. Hmm... you didn't supply any references, so I had to poke around a bit to get the context. [I certainly don't memorize every post.] It looks like you're referring to: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00765.html which apparently was in reference to your statement: there are some items in non-free that i personally think should not be there, software that is binary-only, proprietary stuff. however, some people find that stuff very useful and we decided long ago that the criteria for what can go into non-free is not ... in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00750.html Ok, since, to my knowledge, he hasn't apologized for that misunderstanding, I guess I can empathize with your belief that it was deliberate. In that case, the only point I have remaining is: please post stuff that's useful and understandable. -- Raul