On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 10:44 +1100, Peter Lawler wrote:
> On 03/02/15 10:31, Always Learning wrote:
>
> > Remember machines should be working for the convenience of Humanity -
> > not for the convenience of anonymous nutters who know absolutely nothing
> > about the user's work situation !
> 'anonymous nutters'? I guess those people on the cited mail lists are
> using fake names. Given you're carrying on about being English, maybe
> you should contemplate the slander, libel and defamation laws in that
> country as well as in other countries where your post may be being read.
Didn't cite any mailing list. One can not defame an anonymous
nutter/expert/genius/fool. Can't be slander because that is oral
defamation.
When the changes (a.k.a. improvements) are introduce, just how many
users will be aware of the identities of those who promoted and
implement those changes ? Very few, if any. Hence 'anonymous' is
definitely justified in that context.
Nutters seems justified because a wise decision maker will always permit
informed users to make their own choice.
> And just to be 100% clear, you're certainly not speaking for me.
Writing for myself is sufficient. This list does not yet circulate audio
messages.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
