discuss: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
Subject:
Re: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
23 Nov 2004 05:30:44 -0000
Message-Id: <1101187842.3606.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 01:06 -0800, David Lawyer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:57:59PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> I searched on Google "gpl is a contract" and "gpl is not a contract".
> The score is that 271 say it's a contract, 225 say it's not. When I wrote
> that it was a contract, I didn't know much about the other point of view.
David, if you are looking for ways to discredit yourself, then you can
hardly do better than by using Google as a crystal ball, then defending
your opinion by stating that you did not understand the opposing view.
Strike one.
> > who refers to licences as "copyrights",
>
> I haven't done this often. But from the context it should have been
> clear that I was actually referring to a license. It's common (but
> technically incorrect) to use the word copyright in this way. If people
> understand what you mean from the context, I think it's sometimes OK to
> use "copyright" incorrectly this way, since I think that the word
> "copyright" is more familiar to the public.
>
Good grief. If you made a mistake, say so. Arguing that it is
technically incorrect but more familiar to the unwashed masses, and that
therefore you expect the rest of us to account for your sloppy use of
terminology when you are *supposed* to be a bloody expert on the
subject, is just silly.
Also, note that this list is by no means populated by the "public." Most
people here have a more-than-passing acquaintance with these issues, and
a few are quite well-versed. And this organization exists in part
precisely to destroy "common but incorrect" views (e.g. "Linux can't do
X or Y").
Strike two.
> Rick Moen has previously quoted me out of context, and has resorted to
> unjustified ad hominem attacks on me, etc. I'm way behind on my email
> and one reason is Rick Moen's posts.
>
Rick has claimed repeatedly (and sometimes less diplomatically than
could be expected) that you have far less knowledge on the subject of
licensing than others here believe you have or than you are generally
purported to have. In several cases I can remember, he has offered
specific comments and challenges to your views.
While Rick really has been rather harsh sometimes, he has repeatedly
attacked your *views* and your *knowledge* (or lack thereof as he sees
it), not you personally. At least, this is my reading of his posts.
Furthermore, when he has attacked your views he has been clear in his
quoting and I have never felt a quote to be taken out of context, or one
of your statements deliberately distorted or misinterpreted.
If you are a slow reader, that seems to me irrelevant to the discussion
at hand. Your lag time in reading this list (which is quite low-traffic
anyway) is no one else's problem but yours. It also wouldn't be a
problem if your posts didn't trigger adversarial comments this way and
your defense actually had some depth.
You did notice that Rick has written only two posts to this list in the
last 30 days, right? Is that why you're way behind on your email?
Strike three.
Sheesh.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz ####@####.####
