Re: something related to the soc-ctte
Kevin Mark <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:54:35PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > But if they did mean it, line 2 could be "yes. here's why you deserved
> > it" which almost no-one will ever accept. Why prolong the flames?
> Hi MJR,
Please do not send personal messages to me via mailing lists.
> at this point you would have someone who was flamed and someone who
> meant to flame them. This would be a clear statement about the flamer.
So? We already knew they were a flamer and need to decide to deal
with them or tolerate them. The pillory-BTS would add little data.
In some cases, it could let flamers sow doubt about their behaviour.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct