Debian and GNU maintenance, was Re: BitKeeper licence critic

[MJ Ray]

Jörg,
> So you are learn resistant :-( 

So, you are that arrogantly insulting.  :-(

> I AM AT CEBIT NOW 

AND I AM AT WORK TOO.  What has that to do with this?

> If you are unable to understand this stay quiet.

Why?  Ignorance has not prevented you spouting erroneous views on unrelated
topics.  At least I know a little of the one I wanted to discuss with you,
the Debian BTS.  Sadly, you do not want to learn.

> If you are unwilling to read documentation, it does not make sense to 
> discuss anything with you. Everything you ask is documented, so why should 
> I spend my time and write things that I did already write years ago.

I have read available documentation, but you usually give no references. 
The things that I have read on your private site do not fully explain the
issues which I am attempting to raise, yet you still try to claim that you
have already addressed them and I am not reading your documentation.

To be frank, you could design the most wonderful replacement for make ever
created, but if you can neither effectively communicate that fact nor see
that you cannot communicate it, your solution will make no progress.  All
the ranting about other people needing to READ things will make no
difference.

> Sorry, I will not disclose private mail just because you are unable to
> find information.

And I will not believe that your reports of the private mails are unbiased,
in light of your previous unfounded slurs against GNU projects.  So tell me,
how could I possibly know that your wealth of priavte email about make says
what you report it to?

On the make included files issue, you should remember that even your own
documentation claims that your desired feature is non-standard.  Nothing
like consistency, eh?

FUs set, again.
-- 
MJR