On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:49:32AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Say the word and I'm gone. I've been called a weaselley lawyer, a
> spin-doctor, and apparently I'm willing to break promises and don't have a
> sufficiently high standard of ethics to be in software development. I am
> -- or was -- willing to believe that reasonable people could support or
> oppose John's General Resolution. But apparently that is not the case.
And I've been called a hypocrite, whose arguments are so plainly ignorant
of the issues and basic logic that they can be dismissed out of hand
without any thought, an immoral moocher, and the promises I've made are
dismissed as unimportant products of my inability to read.
I'm not sure why people in this debate seem to think that only whichever
side they support is able to make cogent points, and why they also seem to
think that only the remarks of the opposite side are insulting, demeaning
offensive, and undeserved. Maybe we're all this dense.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgplS5BM7EOXx.pgp
Description: PGP signature