Re: Tango

[Peter Simons]

Tom Howard writes:

 >> > You know that Guido syncs from your cvs to try both
 >> > archives in sync.
 >>
 >> That's bullshit, Tom.
 >
 > Regardless of what you think is motives are you can't
 > logically attack his version of the macros since they
 > originally come from your archive.

I am not attacking Guido, I am attacking you for saying
something that is obviously bullshit. Not I am speculating
about Guido's motives, you are. I simply pointed out that
these motives you assert do not match the facts:

 >> Or please explain why none of the macros he has gotten
 >> submitted to his private e-mail address ever showed up
 >> on gnu.org even though he has CVS commit rights here?
 >>
 >> How does that constitute "keeping in synch"?
 >
 > Guido would need to explain this, not I.

In that case, you shouldn't be making assertions about why
Guido does something or why not.


 > BTW, I've got the latest version of ac-archive from the
 > cvs, I'm ready to merge in the licence changes (as per
 > your specifications). Shall I proceed, or will there be
 > another nasty surprise for me when I go to commit?

Yes, there is another nasty surprise: I have done it
already.


 >> It is perfectly valid according to the license, but it
 >> doesn't mean I have to feel great respect for the people
 >> who do it.

 > *sigh*, I don't think I respect your your concept of free
 > software that isn't free.

I'll say more about that in the "license" thread.


 >> Check out this page: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrite>.

 > Excuse me. I do not believe I have attacked you
 > personally.

Of course not. I must have imagined it. I apologize. By the
way: I've looked at the Automake stuff you've committed in
ac-archive-build. Holy shit, that is a lot of CRAP. I
understand you are involved in the Automake project in some
way? I am really wondering what use these guys have for
contributions of that spectacularly low quality. I have seen
monkeys put stuff together that made more sense than these
commits do.

Please do NOT take this personally. I really don't mean to
attack you. I am just voicing my opinion that your work is
complete and utter crap. If you think I do that because I
want to attack you personally, then you are unreasonable and
won't listen to constructive criticism.


 > If you feel I have done so, I apologise in advance and
 > please let me know and point me to the message where it
 > occurred.

It's pretty simple to recognize: Whenever you get the
impression that I am unfriendly and confrontational in my
replies, _then_ I have felt personally attacked. With that
in mind, it should be straight-forward to figure the
appropriate passages in the recent discussion out.

Peter