On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof <pvanh...@gnome.org> > wrote:
> > The only person who here might have intentionally created the > > ambiguity > > is the person who first used the word to describe proprietary: > > Richard. > > I use "might" wisely, I'm not saying this was the intention. > > Have you ever read his manifesto? While you might not agree with his > conclusions, his logic would pass most any scrutiny. I have, yes. I don't always follow his logic and certainly not his conclusions. I don't know what this has to do with me saying that I agree that ambiguity was likely not Richard's intention when he questioned the legitimacy of proprietary software. Can we stick to the point please? > > Pointing to Lefty for being guilty of intentionally creating > > ambiguity is nothing more than either being a moron, or being so > > disinterested that you don't know who said what first. > > Moron: > > 1. a person who is (notably stupid or) lacking in good judgment. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks. When a person falsely accuses Lefty of putting bias in his surveys THEN you apparently don't need to respond with the ad-hominem bomb??!! Strange? I don't think so. Xavier said something pro free software so he can't make ad-hominem attacks. Right? A false accusation like that is an attack on Lefty's integrity too. Stop ignoring it. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list