Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof 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

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.



Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]