On 26 Mar 2013, at 23:24, Brian Conley <bri...@smallworldnews.tv> wrote:
> Rich, the point is simple, let me put it into a formula: > > (civility + relevant advice) / length = degree to which people consider your > advice <delurk> That's an awfully glib statement to make if you consider lives at risk of imprisonment or worse. I've known Rich for years through a bunch of other lists I'm part of and while I'd consider his advice "direct" I know enough of him to know he is _never_ uncivil. I've attempted to bait him myself when I thought him wrong and he does not rise to it. I've come to highly respect him though I admit his stance on issues edges on binary and unwavering. You'd be remiss to let that be an end to it. I suggest you put personal pride to one side and continue to debate him, because I can attest he will not, despite any misgiving you have with him retort to petulance, he will only state the affairs as he sees them. Cool down and engage, because you are most certainly NOT being trolled. </delurk> Graham > > Finally, I do look forward to your advice. I generally read most of your > comments on this list as I find them insightful, however in this case, I was > struck by your entirely hostile attitude. That is distinctly your perspective, I think you have misread the situation. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
