Luke Davis writes: "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he listed." Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations. Rather outrageous ones, too. PS: I leave your patronizing "so, dear" without further comment. > From: Luke Davis <ldavis at shellworld.net> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka flamed, attacked, and misconstrued > thusly: > > > Darrell Shandrow writes: > > > > "Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny equal access." > > Actually, I believe this comment, which you so neatly took out of context, > originally was: > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well... > > He appears to be stating fact, here, not spreading baseless "trash", as > you state. > > You further quoted him as saying: > > > "Wonder if this is an extension of a revised policy to deny > > accessibility," > > First, not only is this quote taken out of context, it is also taken out > of order. It is supposed to appear *above* the former statement, which > then serves to support the content of this one. > Further, he did not state this as fact, but proposed as conjecture, and, > moreover, posed it in the form of a question, as such not even claiming it > to be fact, but asking whether it might be the case, given the fact of the > denial of access he later mentioned. > > > you only make yourself sound like a bigot and an idiot. > > And you make yourself appear highly illogical, and as someone who wishes > to stir up trouble on the forum, by constantly attacking anyone who does > not hold a carbon copy of your own biases and opinions. There is nothing > wrong with debating his statements. However, doing so with more facts, > and with logic, will get you much further, and might actually win you the > argument such as it is, than will emotional outbursts, such as the one > you have just exhibited here and in the past, and, no doubt, such as that > of which I will soon surely be the target. > > > Or, are you claiming some inside knowledge of new policies at RH? If so, > > kindly provide documentation. We'd all like to know about that. > > It is worth noting, that he did not state that there was such a policy, > but merely suggested, and asked, whether there might be one, given recent > actions on the part of Redhat. > I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he > listed. However, an investigation of same might be in order, so that you > can coherently argue to the contrary. > > > Else, we just know more about you. Perhaps you've just been hearing > > voices? > > Case in point. Now, not only have you stopped debating the issue you hold > so dear, all be it as non-realisticly as you did, you have reverted to > personal insults, perhaps in an effort to divert attention from the issue > at hand, by involving him in an emotional response? Have you ever > considered running for political office? > > Luke > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- Janina Sajka, Director Technology Research and Development Governmental Relations Group American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Email: janina at afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
