Joseph Carter wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:51:38PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 3- You haven't responded to my point 2, which RMS said on this
> >    mailing list yesterday was a bad idea.
> 
> Peter, he's NOT GOING TO respond to that point.  His whole argument now
> seems to hinge on RMS accepting implicit permission as legal.  RMS saying
> that such implicit permission is difficult to rely on and all together a
> bad plan bursts his bubble nicely and for the sake of consistancy on his
> part (and because he's done a damned effective job trolling you along) he
> has no choice but to ignore or downplay that point as much as possible.
> To do otherwise would end the argument and not in a way that is favorable
> to him since he'd be in the unfortunate position of attacking the opinion
> he has used as his defense.
> 
> Give it a rest, eesh!

I wonder what world Joe lives on since I responded to that point
yesterday. 

BTW, if you guys wonder why I take such a harsh attitude towards Debian
Joe gives a wonderful example why. Useless people.

> 
> --
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
> Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
> The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
> 
> Perhaps Debian is concerned more about technical excellence rather than
> ease of use by breaking software. In the former we may excel.  In the
> latter we have to concede the field to Microsoft. Guess where I want to go
> today?
>         -- Manoj Srivastava