You replied privately, offlist. Was it intentional? If yes, why: I see nothing secret there? If no, may I resent it back to the list?
David <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300 >> Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> wrote: >> > David <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO as the >> > > very same core points could have been made in a less excitable manner >> > > without potential breaching of the above linked guidelines >> > >> > That’s curious. Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to form >> > rather than due to substance is not censorship? No dictionary available >> > to me suggest it. > Sorry to double send but, on review, I think a bit more explanation is > needed. > the points in question can avoid censorship, or hit it head on, depending on > how they are put. Daniel was triggering blocking/censorship head on by > stating his points in a way which breached the guidelines on many levels > It would have been a rather trivial matter for Daniel to have stated his key > points in a non-controversial way > I hope I've clarified this for you now but if I can be of more assistance > please let me know. Thank you for a thorough explanation of censor’s motives. But... I suppose now, my question was poorly phrased: I had to clarify, that it actually has nothing do to with Daniel’s letter specifically, but to ‘censorship’ in general. As you noticed, I am not an Anglophone, so on reading your remark, I suspected that I misunderstood how the word ‘censorship’ is used in English. To me it looked (and still looks) fully applicable to forbidding expressions as well as ideas.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
