Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>
>>> I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
>>> can assure you it was not intentional. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to
>>> find the subthread you are refer
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
can assure you it was not intentional. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to
find the subthread you are referring to.
My post may have been : Me
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced
> > arguments
> > in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the
> > arguments i held there where responded.
>
>
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
>>>removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
>>>without mo
Sven Luther wrote:
> Also, i have to remember you that my first post here, where i voiced arguments
> in contradiction of Josh's summary, was answered by josh, but none of the
> arguments i held there where responded.
I apologize if I failed to respond to arguments in your initial mail; I
can assu
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:29:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > have accpeted the ocaml is non-free consensus without a word, and see it
> > removed from debian and all the (30-50 by now) packages that depend on it
> > without moving, apart from r
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it
>> clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts
>> which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims
>> based on pure specu
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:40:28PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:52:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:23:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Sven's messages are consta
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:52:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sve
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:35:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sven's messages are constantly and deliberately laced with derision and
> > insults--in almost *ev
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 06:34:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
> > people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
> > then claim con
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of thing I and Sven are talking about. There
> is an implicit assumption here that an argument crafted over more than a
> day or two must obviously be inferior to one that is spammed out from
> the tip of
Sven Luther wrote:
> I will ask upstream about this once they come back from vacations and have
> them see if their legal team, even if bad, can offer us some answer. Maybe the
> team working on the CECILL licence would also help here. What was the
> conclusion of that discussion ? And if we don't
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes
> > > you
> > > has left in disgust, and yo
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:57:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, the process Sven describes here seems to be happening. Some
> people on the list abuse the other participants until they leave, and
> then claim consensus afterwards. They may just as well procede to say
> that whoever
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> > has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
>
> *You've* driven three people out of this discussion wi
Because you might be overly intoxicated and/or hospitalized taking
drinks for everything Sven does, I suggest a simple case race is
probably about as much alcohol as you should ever consume at one time we
will forgive if you can't take all the drinks :)
Dan
Brian Nelson wrote:
Sven Luther <[
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:17:38AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> > has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
>
> *You've* driven three people out
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> intention would clearly be to dealy the issue until everyone who opposes you
> has left in disgust, and you can claim consensus.
*You've* driven three people out of this discussion with your personal abuse
against them. Who is exactly
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:35:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Sven Luther writes:
>
> > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > >> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
>> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
>> actually engage him in conversation
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:49:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in
> >> a
> >> public mailing list. This way others can play alo
Sven Luther writes:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
>> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
>> actually engage him in conversation.
>
> So, you are cl
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
> public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
> actually engage him in conversation.
So, you are clearly not interested in solvi
The procedure: attempt to debate something with Sv*n L*th*r, preferably in a
public mailing list. This way others can play along without having to
actually engage him in conversation.
Every time he does one of the following, take a drink.
* His rebuttal of your argument includes the word "bogus"
28 matches
Mail list logo
