From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267158AbTAUSqw>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:46:52 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267160AbTAUSqw>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:46:52 -0500
Received: from modemcable166.48-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.200.48.166]:65416
	"EHLO xanadu.home") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267158AbTAUSqv>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:46:51 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:55:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home
To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
cc: mark@mark.mielke.cc, <galibert@pobox.com>,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <dax@gurulabs.com>,
       <lm@bitmover.com>, <root@chaos.analogic.com>,
       <pollard@admin.navo.hpc.mil>, <R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl>,
       <jalvo@mbay.net>
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him
In-Reply-To: <E18b2xq-0007rw-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301211326320.24967-100000@xanadu.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Solely from your own point of view again.  Sorry, you just managed to lose 
>     your credibility on this whole matter.
> 
> With all due respect, I doubt it.  I could not lose any credibility
> with you, because I had none to start with.  You demanded explanations
> for this and that with an unfriendly tone.  

To the contrary, I believe my original message to you was pretty neutral. I
even took great care not to be offensive.  I however stated some _facts_
which aren't coherent with your credit/naming policy so you could clarify
them.  You instead chose to qualify the core of my mail as unfriendly and
avoided the issue altogether.

> I figured that even if I gave good answers to all those accusations,

Accusations?  

> it would be unlikely to win your good opinion.

At least you might have avoided the bad one.

> Insted I responded to the points that seemed worth responding to for the
> sake of other readers starting with a more neutral attitude.

I was one of them, but since you chose to qualify most of my points as not
"worth responding" since they challenge your agenda, I can only conclude
that it's not possible to have a reasonable conversation with this
narrow-minded attitude of yours.

Someone else replied to my original mail in private.  We agreed to disagree
after some really interesting exchanges, yet I didn't lose any respect for
that person at all.


Nicolas