On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:30:08 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 23 January 2008 15:09 : \____
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:20:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I read the first few paragraph and also remembered how he
>>>>> previously defended GPLv3 against myths. I didn't read this carefully.
>>>>
>>>> No offence, Roy, but you *should* have read it it carefully. When you
>>>> post stuff, anything at all, you should make sure it says what you claim
>>>> it says, else you just lay yourself wide open to criticism of this kind
>>>> - if not, in many cases, the criticism will be justified. If you have to
>>>> choose between sacrifing volume of posts or accuracy of posts, choose
>>>> the former, not the latter. You will save yourself a lot of trouble.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree, but there is always room for error. The question is, what
>>> will be the recurrence? If one in 300 is incorrect or inaccurate, then
>>> that's reasonable. Even reading entire articles isn't enough. In many
>>> cases, articles themselves are incorrect (recent examples include
>>> articles about Mono, memory leaks in C# and accusation against the
>>> olpcnews.com guy). To err is human.
>>>
>>
>> Just ignore Kier and continue. He makes outrageous claims and never
>> backs them,
>
> Even *if* that were true, this would be different from you exactly how?
>
>> but demands that others prove things over and over. He's
>> hardly a role-model here, and most certainly does not practise what he
>> preaches.
>>
>
> Well, that is a trait you would share then
Despite my battles with Kier, he is one of the more reasonable posters
around here.
Linonut used to be but he has slipped a cog in recent weeks and seems to
have been mesmorized by Schestowitz somehow.
|
|
