Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess something like 2%-5% of the developer body as a whole is=20
involved in the DCC; I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what=20
proportion of Debian's extended userbase use distros involved in it)
For it to be
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Re the organization formerly known as the Debian Core Consortium: No
need. We won't use the word Debian in the name--we'll call
ourselves the DCC Alliance, where DCC stands for Debian Common Core.
The comments on
There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech. Just count
the number of people who like your style versus the number of people who
are pissed off by it and adjust accordingly.
I reject this notion that communication is a popularity contest.
Unfortunalty many people have
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:32:16PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
You're a smart guy Andrew (definitely smarter than me)
Now half a dozen people are going to
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:13:21PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg01598.html
Looks like a perfectly justified response to me. I don't see how that
could be classified as 'provocation' or 'troll', because in no sense
did it encourage more
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:40:52PM +0300, Horst Lederhosen wrote:
There's no need for any platonic ideal of justified speech. Just count
the number of people who like your style versus the number of people who
are pissed off by it and adjust accordingly.
I reject this notion that
Andrew Suffield writes:
So your claim is that you can never object to people for working
against consensus because doing so would be working against
consensus. Well, that appears to deny you from being allowed to make
that point, so I think your argument is self-defeating.
I have no
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:43:16AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Your approach seemed much more likely to annoy and
mislead people than to help identify where they agree or disagree.
I disagree, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.
But I give up.
That says it all really. I've rebutted
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
My response is simply
this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
evidence.
So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I
explained every case. I think that says a lot for the accuracy
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
My response is simply
this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
evidence.
So far (three days) we've had one person try, and give up after I
explained every case. I think that
For how long do we have to continue to wade through this flood of
emails regarding the terrible state of heart of Andrew Suffield? What
is the ultimate purpose of this discussion? Do you think Jens
Schmalzing would have approved?
Mikael D.
stats.gif
Description: GIF image
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
My response is simply
this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to present
evidence.
So far (three days) we've had
La primera semana de PRE-LANZAMIENTO HA SIDO UN ÉXITO ROTUNDO.
Tenemos altas de afiliados de los 24 países donde operará la empresa.
Hemos recibido miles de correos interesandose en el programa.
Ahora es un momento único para coger una posición EXCELENTE en la empresa, NO LO DEJES PARA MAÑANA,
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
For how long do we have to continue to wade through this flood of
emails regarding the terrible state of heart of Andrew Suffield?
Until people stop making accusations.
What
is the ultimate purpose of this discussion?
I think
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who
thinks otherwise to present evidence.
So far (three days) we've had one person
Anibal Monsalve Salazar writes:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
My response is simply this: it's lies. I challenge anybody who
thinks otherwise to present evidence.
So far
Eldon Koyle writes:
I'll agree that the pledge to killfile you doesn't seem like the best
solution...
This is the first I've heard of it. Not only is it not the best solution,
it's appalling. Andrew has been in my killfile for years, but he's coming
out now.
--
John Hasler
--
To
17 matches
Mail list logo
