As much as I'd love for this thread to end and for everyone to get
back on with the actually important task of getting Jessie ready for
release, and as much as my better judgement is saying to me "Don't
send this", I really do need to share why Phil has been one of my
long time Heroes here, since it seems just as poignantly relevant
today as it was all those years back.
The truth of this simple statement burned itself indelibly into my memory:
"We are all here as a result of ignoring majority opinion on a number
of fronts, so why is it that people expect us to take the results of
But the rest of it should be mandatory reading for anyone engaging in
any of the epic threads. We might have avoided this entire farce if
people had just stuck to its simple guidelines.
Go read it. We'll wait:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 02:05:57PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Russell Coker <russell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > http://etbe.coker.com.au/2010/11/06/unparliamentary-language-free-software/
> > I wrote a blog post about Unparliamentary Language and FOSS which received
> > some interesting comments (and the Wikipedia page is hilarious). I think that
> > in the case of someone using a term such as "bigoted" it would be reasonable
> > for the moderator to request that they withdraw that statement. As such a
> > statement doesn't seem libelous or seem likely to cause further disputes there
> > wouldn't be a need to do anything after the statement has been
> > withdrawn.
> I love some of the quirks of parliamentary language. I think the thing
> that probably does most to temper arguments in parliament is the fact
> that you're not allowed to talk to anyone but the Speaker of the House.
> Telling an impartial judge about how you perceive someone, even if
> you're very upset, is significantly less provocative than doing it
> directly at the target of your criticism.
> Anyway, as it happens the word 'bigoted' turns up in the Hansard record
> of the UK parliament fairly regularly, and it didn't take long to track
> down an instance where it was being used to describe a large swathe of
> or this very pointed attack on an individual, where a point of order
> suggested that it was offensive language is made and rejected:
> That's from 1972, so perhaps the meaning of the word has shifted since.
> Still, I cannot find any instance of it being withdrawn in a brief search.
> So, it's not unparliamentary, not that that makes any odds.
> I am astonished that anyone thinks its an inaccurate way of describing
> some of the interactions that go on in Free Software. Many of us seem
> to take great pleasure in being members of strangely defined factions
> and splinter groups, with the definitions reasonably often being in
> terms of the things that are opposed.
> The dictionary definition that I (as a native en_GB speaker) recognise
> for 'bigoted' is:
> Obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction,
> and intolerant towards other people’s beliefs and practices
> Is anyone really going to try and suggest that RMS is not obstinate at
> times? How is his tolerance of differing opinion coming along? I
> suppose we all mellow with age, do we not?
> N.B. I think that RMS's obstinacy is a fine characteristic. If it were
> not for him, I would have had a much less enjoyable working life,
> because there would not have been much in the way of Free Software to
> work on, so I'd still be be running the worthless crap peddled by the
> likes of Microsoft ... oh, oops, I may have let my bigotry show there.
> Cheers, Phil.
> |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
> |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
> |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.