Chris Sawtell wrote: >On Wednesday 29 November 2006 17:06, Gordon Findlay wrote: >> Read that again: freedom is indivisible. >Indeed that's true, but the question we are debating is whether we, as a >group, wish to extend that freedom to members from whom excessively >frequent postings seem to indicate a very different and divergent point >of view of the world from that which the mainstream CLUG community >members normally see things.
That is a very un-free view. What 'mainstream'? Who defines the 'mainstream'? This sort of judgment is one that can only be made in a closed group. What's mainstream in CLUG? Is it Ubuntu+Gnome? Not long ago it was gentoo+KDE. Why must there be a 'mainstream' in a freedom-oriented organisation anyway? If there is to be an 'approved view' (I know, I'm drawing a long bow here) then CLUG is not free. Nor is it free if the mailing list is moderated (I draw no distinction between the mailing list and CLUG). Freedom is a delicate, and precious, flower which needs a hothouse to flourish; other occupants of the house must make allowances. >to find a solution to a somewhat esoteric problem and see a continuum >of postings somewhat laking in literacy skills about irrelevant >politics, they'll just unsubscribe and find the solution to their >particular problem elsewhere. Which is fantastic - they got their problem solved. [Humour alert: Is that a correct use of 'continuum' :-) - I'm a pedant] I don't intend to post again in this thread - I've said what I needed to say. But here's a question or two to ponder: would rms enjoy being a member of this list? Would he be in the 'mainstream'? Slainte Gordon.
<<winmail.dat>>
