Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 " isn't well thought out ?" LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:39 +0000, pete shorthose wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500
> Dave Robillard <dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +0000, pete
> > shorthose wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500
> > > Dave Robillard <dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +0000, pete
> > > > shorthose wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500
> > > > > Dave Robillard <dave@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +0000, pete
> > > > > > shorthose wrote:
> > > > > > > virtually nobody cares what you think.
> > > > > > > how's that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Virtually nobody even knows who you
> > > > > > are, let alone what you think. How's
> > > > > > that?
> > > > >
> > > > > i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very
> > > > > active on this list nor in the community
> > > > > in general. it's even truer in the wider
> > > > > context. so, pejorative implications
> > > > > aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement
> > > > > to make. quite what it has to do with the
> > > > > matter at hand, i'm not so sure.
> > > >
> > > > You started it, don't complain when you get
> > > > what's coming ;)
> > >
> > > ok. get back to me when you can justify your
> > > statement with something other then an ad
> > > hominem.
> >
> > Um...
> >
> > You say X to me.
> > I say X to you.
>
> hardly. even if you missed the point (which i
> doubt, having sparred with you on irc numerous
> times, to altogether more humorous effect) i even
> explained on irc that it was not intended as an
> insult, that i was illustrating an invalid
> debating tactic by using it against you.
>
> in order to tackle it directly you cannot avoid
> undermining your own use of it. and you knew it
> too. hence you changed the subject to how i was
> a nobody and hence irrelevant.
> now, in the scheme of things, that may even be
> true, but it doesn't make me wrong.
>
> so there, that's cleared that up. _again_.
>
> > You accuse me of ad hominem.
>
> indeed. you didn't tackle my point directly,
> preferring instead to question my right to
> criticise you at all for reasons unrelated to the
> topic of discussion. text book ad hominem.
> i doubt that even you would attempt to dispute
> that. (well, perhaps doubt is too strong a word)
>
> > I'll get back to you when you know something
> > about discourse other than being able to quote
> > fancy words you don't seem to understand.
>
> you just served up some fresh insults and still
> didn't justify what you said. i tell you, i'm
> not in the least bit fucking surprised.
>
> now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy
> combination of pejoratives and craft them into
> a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket
> because i'm well and truly done talking to you.
> i might as well be debating an ATM.

No, that's quite alright. You began the attacks, you may finish them.

I'm not sure how you can possibly justify the ridiculous argument above
given the nature of how this sub-thread began (i.e. you attacking me).

You win? I guess?

-DR-

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jan 30 04:15:03 2008