Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
> have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
> month after month.
No matter how much someone pisses you off here, it doesn't warrant the
kind of language you choose.
> alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> pedantic frothing-at-the-mouth by wowser-imitations scoring cheap
> points whining about the swearing.
Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
But Debian doesn't care about whether it stops. Craig thinks if
someone does something he doesn't like, then it's ok for him to launch
into an infantile diatribe.
We recently had a lot of hand-wringing about the claim that this kind
of stuff disproportionately puts women off, and that some women
hesitate strongly to enter such situations.
Well, what's more important, Debian? Craig's continued right to do
this, or the people that it puts off (be they male or female)? Most
people have decided to roll their eyes, ignore it, and say "there goes
Craig again", and then get really upset about Branden or James Troup
or whatever, none of whom are nearly as destructive on their worst day
as Craig is on his best.
So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
off women (and others too)--are you going to join me here and tell
Craig that this is unacceptible? Or is it actually just fine?
Thomas
Reply to: