|
If we're going to require people to use their brains, perhaps its
not too much to ask that individuals take responsibility for paying
attention to who they are speaking to. This is not a personally configurable setting on the mailing list software, and we're relegated to a dualistic choice that cannot satisfy all participants, yet we still must choose and have previously chosen. If this will be a recurring issue, perhaps we should structure a yearly survey/vote. gf On 3/20/13 12:37 PM, Matt Mackall
wrote:
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote:Isn't that a valid point?No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email.Am I reading this correctly? You need to personally witness someone make a potentially fatal mistake before you'll take a risk seriously?If you're unwilling to employ foresight as a decision-making aide, you may not be taking full advantage of your prefrontal cortex. -- Gregory Foster || gfos...@entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/ |
-- 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
