On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:30:03 -0700, Michael K Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 8/9/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? manoj -- "It's today!" said Piglet. "My favorite day," said Pooh. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]