On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:18:00 -0500 Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: bull. you used the ad populum logical fallacy to defend your favoured interpretation of a contentious term. i used that same logical fallacy against you because it was false. obviously, as a natural consequence of refuting me, you would refute your earlier argument. i thought you would appreciate it given our seemingly endless debate about the viability of theoretically riding a theoretical bicycle. you can hardly claim to be ignorant of debating methods and their uses. i even said "virtually no one welcomes drobilla" when you joined #lad on freenode. it was TEH FUNNEZ! so you see, how did i insult you if i used a _false_ argument? it's just nonsense. granted, it's possible that some may have missed my point (i seriously doubt you did, and that is a complement i might add) but i subsequently explained it, TWICE before and now thrice. did you not read what i wrote, or, what exactly? it's just not credible to continuously maintain that i insulted you. to do so however, does capably distract from the fact that you were wrong. which i think is EXACTLY the point. open source is a contentious term. it's use predates any attempt by vested interests to canonise it. it is intrinsically ambiguous when used to describe source code as the historical use of the term open implies nothing reliable what so ever about the terms of a fucking software license. to my mind, the OSI has a decidedly corporate bent and thus i'm not at all surprised to find that a corporate clause is verboten. in short, it's an awful term to use in an *unqualified* manner. not that you care, running roughshod over any dissenting voices safe in the ken that your position in the community affords you special privilege. what was it you said about deceit and PR? to people who have worked damned hard to get us a gig compatible sampler on linux? if you had said that LS is not in conformance with open source as defined by the OSI, then benno or christian would have probably replied, you are correct, and that isn't important to me. and that would have been that. now, the reason i'm rather more uhm.. "energised" than usual is due to that lovely little chat on irc that we had in the interim. where you so generously implied that, whilst it's presumably ok for you to fill up the lists with views on the validity of software licenses, us low folk better shut the hell up and not bother you with their silly views else you'll up and leave the community. well you know, if you're that sensitive, don't discuss it in the first place. and don't ever try and blackmail me with dumb shit like that. i'm not in the tiniest bit impressed with your alpha male crap. the only reason we don't go at it a lot more is because you contribute a great deal to linux audio and my handful of edits to a few apps does is not sufficient for me to regularly infringe on the peace of mind of the list subbers. (and to be honest, even if i matched you in terms of code output, i still wouldn't make a habit of it) i'm probably as arrogant and aggressive as you but at least i try to keep it under wraps eh? cheers, pete.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:11:55 -0500 Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: unfortunately for me, you are quite right. but only about that. now, as i stand by everything else i said, and as you neither dealt with it nor conceded anything, we don't actually seem to be arguing about anything at all any more. looks like we are both done. cheers, pete.

On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 18:52 +0000, pete shorthose wrote: .... were we ever? I hope so. -DR-