Re: Pledge To Killfile Andrew Suffield
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:30:03 -0700, Michael K Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> 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?
"It's today!" said Piglet. "My favorite day," said Pooh.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C