[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?
From: |
Jeremy Bowen |
Subject: |
Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone? |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 04:34:56 -0500 |
> From: Galen Boyer [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:26 PM
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, address@hidden wrote:
> >
> > With respect, this sentence should read "...lays down four
> > criteria for software to be considered free under the FSF
> > definition of the word 'free'."
>
> Not on a GNU list. The default should be the GNU definition.
> Other newsgroups, I agree.
Help: - generic
Emacs: - GNU
Windows: - MS
I don't follow your logic of this being a "GNU" list. It's at *least* 1/2
(even 2/3) non GNU :-) We're discussing a product for MS Windows so surely
the context here is at best ambiguous.
And anyway, if the FSF decided to define Pi=3 that would still not make it
so, no matter where you talked about it.
> > The FSF is not the only "one true path".
>
> Try saying that on alt.religion.emacs. Come on, I dare you...
Shouldn't that be alt.religion.scientology.emacs.
After all, it seems that the RMS brainwashing is almost total for some
participants :-)
- Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, (continued)
- Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Matt McClure, 2001/12/18
- Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Robert Praetorius, 2001/12/18
- Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Paul Whitfield, 2001/12/18
Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Heribert Maier, 2001/12/18
RE: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Jeremy Bowen, 2001/12/19
Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?,
Jeremy Bowen <=
Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Peter Davis, 2001/12/20
Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Paul Kinnucan, 2001/12/20
Re: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?, Jason Rumney, 2001/12/20