[SLL] Actual Mainstream Criticism rather than just in the family here...

[Glenn Stone]

All right.  I've been skipping this thread for lack of content, but this      
goes too far.  I don't have any more authority than the next guy, but I'll    
just say that IMNASHO ad hominem and throwing of loaded words, particularly   
scatology, doesn't belong on a civilized list.  Should it continue, I for     
one will be making a modification to procmail, and that'll be the last I'll   
see of either of you, list moderator or no.                                   
                                                                              
-- Glenn, ticked.                                                             
"... never do business with you again, not for shoelaces or a stick of gum."  
        -- Otis Boyd "Red" Redding, "Shawshank" 

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:09:49PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
>Rob Smith wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2007 6:50 PM, Xeno Campanoli <xcampanoli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>It sounds to me like you're just rabidly against Quality Assurance as a
>process.  That's a lousy excuse to be involved in open source software.
> If you really believe all that, then Microsoft is the true refuge for
>you.  Open Source people want quality software that optimally serves its
>user community, not a bloody sandbox where incompetent engineers can
>hide their turds.
>
>> The whole world already has it, sitting there on the web for anyone
>> who wants it to grab it.
>> 
>> The idea that the world needs it beyond what it has already is more
>> fanaticism then anything else. Attempting to force people who really
>> don't want or care only serves to dilute the entire idea behind it. We
>> need people who believe in their own freedom and will offer it to
>> others as they seek it out, but we don't need people who try to force
>> freedom on other people. When they want it, they'll seek it out. It's
>> not like it's a small movement anymore.
>> 
>
>-- 
>The only sustainable organizing methods focus not on scale,
>but on good design of the functional unit,
>not on winning battles, but on preservation.
>