On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 3:54 PM BST, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 4/14/21 10:23 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> >> The choice to have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> >> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> >> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
> >
> > I agree. Look at the huge ongoing debate about Section 230 in the US
> > that's been going on for at least months. This is something that seems
> > like it ought to have a simple solution, but it doesn't.
> >
>
> The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
>
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
The implication of this being what? That you would have just removed
everyone who disagreed with you from the debate for being 'jerks'? There is
a way to avoid this kind of "rancorous dispute" -- not proposing and then
doubling down on widely unpopular and technically meritless ideas.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
