Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:30:03 -0700, Michael K Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> said:
> On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>> Yes, quite. First they came for those who gratuitously insulted
>> people on the lists; then they came for the ones who posted
>> diatribes about RMS's occupation on -legal; then they came for you,
>> and... oh wait, they already got you, didn't they. What horrors of
>> censorship these killfiles are.
> I didn't have in mind anything quite so self-righteous or
> self-serving, nor do I think the allusion to Martin Niemoeller's
> quote is particularly apposite. (If you do, then I do not envy you
> the position in which you seem to find yourself.) I just think that
> a "pledge to killfile" Andrew would do more damage to Debian's
> reputation for rational discourse than Andrew himself ever could.
I fail to follow this. Ultimately, killfiling is a personal
decision. If a bunch of people are all of one mind over kill filing
someone, how does it affect the reputation of rational discourse?
Since when have I been required to listen to all the blather on the
mailing list lest I lose any hope of being considered rational? Who
made that rule? Can I make up a similarly silly rule about reading
all possible Spam or else one is not pursuing rationale discourse?
What is the substantive difference?
manoj
--
"It's today!" said Piglet. "My favorite day," said Pooh.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: