Re: Duelling banjos or how a sane community goes crazy
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:12:50AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I failed in ending this thread when I posted
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/12/msg00016.html
>
> instead I caused two trolls making even more noise.
Without having read your post, I'm pretty confident that you failed
*because of* Godwin's Law. It is a part of Godwin's Law that calling
someone a Nazi (directly or by implication) with the sole purpose of
ending a thread *does not* end it.
It's a pitty that Godwin's Law has fallen in such a state of
misunderstanding. Using the word Nazi does not end a thread. Talking
about Nazi or National Sozialismus does not end a thread. References
to those concepts do not automatically end a thread. Godwin's Law is
about degradation in S/N: a thread will degrade to the point where it's
only noise, and reaching this point it dies. Now it's up to you to
find out what 'noise' means in this particular case.
> I hope all you people are aware that you are causing a new duelling
> banjo case and helping out Google to connect Debian with hot-babes.
Actually I don't find it that bad. Between slowly fixing stuff in my
packages and trying to catch up with several debian mailing lists, the
hot-babe thread has proven rather amusing[0]. If two years from now
some teen googles for "hot babe" and lands up on Debian's homepage, why
is it bad?
> 3. Go to debian-curiosity with mails which do not belong to
> debian-devel.
debian-curiosa is neither a garbage dump nor a place where you can
badmouth other people, as some folks seem to think, and the hot-babe
thread really has no place there.
Marcelo
[0] Completely OT: I find it rather hard to beleive that there are
people who actually hold some of the opinions that I've read so
far. Currently the "Parlament" of my country is discussing the
passing of a law which pushines several forms of abuse of women
*by* men by not the same forms of abuse of men by women. Ignoring
the fact that existing law already refers to and punishes such
actions *and* that it goes directly against our Constitution, this
particular law has some people rather tickled, including myself: it
is hard to beleive that at the dawn of the XXI century, there's
still people out there who approach the "gender" problem in this
way. You just can't solve a gender problem by creating more
differentiation.
Reply to: