Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nobody has proposed censoring Andrew. People are simply stating that
> they will stop listening to him. Would you deny them that freedom?
Do that quitely, then. A public motion to killfile someone is a public
statement, and that's how it should be taken. Drop the "deny them that
That said, you *know* my position on that thread, and even then, I am
certainly not killfiling anyone.
> There comes a point where the negative aspects of someone's
> contributions grossly outweigh the positive ones. Andrew contributes
Oh? As far as I can see, we have handled the 'negative aspects' quite well
(as a project) so far, at least until this crap went out of d-private, where
all it caused was a relatively mild flamewar, many ill feelings and a lot of
waste of time. Just because the flames were diminishing and the matter was
finally going to the bitbucket... someone HAD to spill it outside of
d-private to see if the fire would grow strong again and burn more people.
I haven't finished reading all the mail yet to know who was the dumbass that
brought the mess out of d-private, but whomever did it is the one to blame
for any extra negative aspects that come out of this whole deal.
> > Nor as far as I know is there any indication that he has
> > mishandled any responsibility as a DD or has been seen by anyone
The latest crap has nothing to do with one's responsibility as a DD, which
IS why the whole deal is so pitiful.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot