On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:08:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:27:37AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:41:59PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > You said you wanted things out of non-free. > > Um... he's posted the rest of that sentence at least twice, and "out of > non-free" is not equivalent to "in main".
Yes, that did not occur to me at the time I read, which I way I granted that I may have misunderstood. However, that is not what Craig has accused me of. He has accused me of being a liar and deliberately deceitful. While he has shown evidence of a misunderstanding, he has not shown evidence of lying; that is the difference I note. > Since he explicitly indicated "not contributed at all", and since he's > posted the complete sentence multiple times, it's really strange that > you're claiming otherwise. Like I said, he's not showing evidence that I intentionally misrepresented him. He's showing evidence of a misunderstanding. Which is why I said if he had claimed I misunderstood, I would have apologized. (As I did with Luther, though it turned out I was right anyway.) But that was not his claim. He said I was a "lying fuck". I maintain he is wrong on that. > Um... he's prickly, but in this case I think you should at least read the > complete sentence of his that you're referring to (the "out of non-free" > sentence) before claiming it's difficult to know if you've misunderstood > him. Or if not the whole sentence, at least read the second line. I have gone back and re-read it, which is why I say I can see the misunderstanding. Obviously I read too fast, or skimmed, or misremembered before. I don't recall exactly what happened. But the point remains too that it is not just this one sentence that gave me that idea; his other remarks lead me to that conclusion (such as saying that practicality always trumps idealogy, then there are no practical reasons that documentation should be a problem) too. That is why I said I may have misunderstood, because I am still not sure exactly where he stands. > Though... he's convinced that you are intelligent enough to have read > the entire sentence before responding to it. And, maybe he's right. Yup. I am also imperfect. -- John
