Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800
csj <csj@zapo.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800,
> Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >
> > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj (csj@zapo.net) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800,
> > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have replied
> > > > that self-control is apparently beyond their mein, I'll remind
> > > > them that consequences for actions are also their
> > > > responsibility. Including finding themselves ignored by those
> > > > who value s over n.
> > >
while some of us may have got carried away on the exuberance of our
collective velocity, where colin requested that the thread be closed, i
think that there were only one or two respondents who failed to respect
that request. karsten's manner, on the other hand, comes across as an
order, and, as such, is damn near guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone
with a brain. particularly, comments such as the anarchist reference
above are totally unwarranted and indeed no less of an indulgence than
participation in the thread itself. furthermore, the threat of
"consequences" strikes me as a tad too authoritarian for this particular
list. on the other hand, thanks to colin for pointing out that
debian-curiosa exists. perhaps we can arrive at a rule whereby the
third, fourth, or fifth response to an off-topic thread would be
directed--on the list--to make use of debian-curiosa as a more
appropriate venue.
ben
Reply to: