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
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
