|
From: | Ron Johnson |
Subject: | Re: [OT] Software politics (was Re: [Pan-users] Re: Questions about the next release) |
Date: | Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:09:55 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090706 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
On 11/13/2010 06:31 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:On 11/13/2010 11:08 AM, Duncan wrote:Steve Davies posted on Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:40:07 +0000 as excerpted:I particularly like the Servantware references...FWIW, I've been thinking, on and off, that I need to figure out some reasonable way to explain that such references are a reflection of my own ethics and value system and that I believe just as strongly that attempting to force them on other users (the servantware masters deserve what they'd get, after all, they're disrespecting my rights at least as much as they expect me not to disrespect their rights to assert control over stuff they wrote... obviously something they don't have to particularly worry about, since I'd be unlikely to run it anyway given the practical issues of trying to run blackbox software I don't trust the ethics of the creators of) not ready to voluntarily choose them would as equally strongly betray those same values. It's gotta be a personal choice.Your uber-earnest Marx-like writing style (dude, that 11 line "paragraph" is ONE SENTENCE!) and use of emotionally-laded words like "servantware" belie your assertion that we all should make our own choices.As opposed to *your* choice of emotionally laden terms like the Nazi-esque "uber" instead of good-old English "overly", and your
I'm the responder, not the initiator.
completely irrelevant comparison of Duncan's writing style to that of Marx? If he wrote like Mother Teressa, would that make him a short Romanian nun with an unjustified reputation as the epitome of charity and piety?
Nice debating technique trying to change the subject from *writing style* to "physical appearance".
If you think that the use of run-on sentences is an attack on your freedom of choice, your hat probably needs an extra layer of tin-foil.
Another failed attempt to twist my words.
The right to make your own choice is not in contradiction to the right of people to use emotionally laden terms to persuade.
But they certainly are less effective.
Besides, try reading Samuel Pepys someday. People back then could make sentences run on for three or four pages! Literally.
So, because Samuel Pepys wrote run-on "pages" in literal chicken scratch (I looked it up in Wikipedia) that makes it ok for Duncan to do it?
Your post is replete with fallacies. -- Seek truth from facts.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |