On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile
you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to
collectively killfile you.
So what you're saying is that mob rule is acceptable to you.
I think that's
[Andrew Suffield]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile
you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to
collectively killfile you.
So what you're saying is that mob rule is acceptable to
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:56:32AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Andrew Suffield]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile
you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:25:36AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
That does not extend to permit a group to go around making accusations
and advocating that other people do something based on those
accusations.
Yes Andrew, we know you think we're all idiot lemmings who believe everything
we're
On 8/15/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That does not extend to permit a group to go around making accusations
and advocating that other people do something based on those
accusations. In the real world, this is a tort, specifically
defamation of character. And benefit of the
I wrote:
Z rejoices in the flames that his posts
inspire, which is more or less the factual content of Z's posts are
trolls [1] ...
Whoops, left out Footnote 1, which is my own take on the same topic as
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html :
FWIW, the origin of this usage of
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:22:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
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
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:24:23PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Descending to your flawed level of rhetoric,
What are the flaws?
The flaw is that of projection: assuming that silence means everyone
agrees with you.
That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means, here. Are you
saying
* Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050813 12:30]:
That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means, here. Are you
saying that this principle does not hold?
No, it does not hold. This principle does not even hold in court,
but only for criminal offences.
So until we are discussing about
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 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
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
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
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the
past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been
putting around this notion that I generally write flames, trolls,
put-downs, whatever you
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:19:32AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:09:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the
past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been
putting around this notion
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 claim I have a superiority
complex, because of something that I didn't
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than spending your time dismissing this situation as some
cabal-like conspiracy by a small group of people, maybe you should take a
really long, hard look at your behavior and ask yourself Why me?
I've no grudge against David Nusinow, but rather
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:09:09PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I've no grudge against David Nusinow, but rather than
using this expression being parroted around debian,
aimed at various different people, maybe you should take
a really long, hard try at writing a more original post?
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
sigh I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this
crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far.
...
You started this thread with Re: in the subject but you are quoting
nobody and I can't find the beginning of
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
There comes a point where the negative aspects of someone's
contributions grossly outweigh the positive ones. Andrew contributes
Oh? As far as I can see, we have handled the 'negative aspects'
Debian is a technical project and a social group/community. We
have the nm process to help people to become well versed for the
technical challanges. We dont yet have a social nm process and
dont need it mostly. In my oppinion that is because most people
try to fit in, cooperate and get along on
* Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050810 08:34]:
sigh I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this
crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far.
...
You started this thread with Re: in the subject but you are quoting
nobody and I can't find the
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:07:54AM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
On 8/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is: think for yourself, and consider the sources of what you think you
know. How accurate is it *really*? What do you find when you look at
the things which actually
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:00:19PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
In my oppinion that is because most people
try to fit in, cooperate and get along on their own or at least
listen to their peers when they are asked to do so.
Well then maybe you should try doing that, instead of attacking those
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:26:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
There comes a point where the negative aspects of someone's
contributions grossly outweigh the positive ones. Andrew contributes
very little of any direct benefit to the project, but has a talent for
stimulating pointless
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:34:57PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
It's one thing to say the guy's an idiot, I ignore his mails, I
advise you do likewise. It's another to say the guy's a blight on
the project, I think he'll go away if enough of us ignore him, who
will pledge with me to
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
attention been a freedom other people enjoy? And if I wish to share
my kill file details with the public, why is it OK to censor _me_,
and deny me the freedom of so sharing my killfile?
It is not... I was pointing out that if one has a pledge to
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The (hardly infrequent) existence of absolutely pointless flamewars
where Andrew is a major participant despite contributing approximately
nothing of any use suggests that we don't handle the negative aspects
well at all.
Well, I was only refering
sigh I absolutely *hate* being forced to defend myself against this
crap and as a general rule, don't. But mob rule is one step too far.
There is a small group of people in this project who have spent the
past several years trashing me in every forum they can. They've been
putting around this
On 8/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is: think for yourself, and consider the sources of what you think you
know. How accurate is it *really*? What do you find when you look at
the things which actually happened?
That's sage advice. However, mako stated: If you read the Debian
The notion of a pledge to killfile Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I would be
horrified to see him censored. Surely, even if every unkind thing I
have seen written about him
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:08:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The notion of a pledge to killfile Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I would be
horrified to see him
On 8/9/05, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The notion of a pledge to killfile Andrew is thoroughly juvenile. I
am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of negatively
critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I would
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nobody has proposed censoring Andrew. People are simply stating that
they will stop listening to him. Would you deny them that freedom?
Do that quitely, then. A public motion to killfile someone is a public
statement, and that's how it should be
On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, quite. First they came for those who gratuitously insulted people on
the lists; then they came for the ones who posted diatribes about RMS's
occupation on -legal; then they came for you, and... oh wait, they already
got you, didn't they.
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:08:02 -0700, Michael K Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The notion of a pledge to killfile Andrew is thoroughly juvenile.
I am probably as guilty (if that is the word) as anyone of
negatively critiquing his conduct on public Debian lists; but I
would be horrified to see
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:21:07 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nobody has proposed censoring Andrew. People are simply stating
that they will stop listening to him. Would you deny them that
freedom?
Do that quitely,
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:30:03 -0700, Michael K Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, quite. First they came for those who gratuitously insulted
people on the lists; then they came for the ones who posted
diatribes about RMS's occupation on
On 8/9/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fail to follow this. Ultimately, killfiling is a personal
decision. If a bunch of people are all of one mind over kill filing
someone, how does it affect the reputation of rational discourse?
Since when have I been
41 matches
Mail list logo
