why are you taking this personaly?
I am not.
What i am emphasising is that the concept of moderation is
inherently evil as it sets up one person in judgement over others.
Which is alien to the philosophy of freedom we support here. We are
not china, with 30,0000 big brothers looking after our behaviour and
habits.
Ah. Moderation is evil, because it sets up one person in judgement
over the others? So are you indicating that kicking/banning requires
NO judgement. I find this funny.
anyone stupid enough, careless enough to get his mail account
infected by such viruses is a menace to the community and deserves to
be booted. You dont blame the birds that get flu - you just cull them
So next time you get infected by a fever, malaria, or any infectious
disease be prepared to get KILLED, and NOT CURED.
law and democracy have nothing to do with mailing lists. Admin is the
boss - if he boots you are booted.
Wonderful. I am impressed. But going by your previous argument "moderation is
inherently evil as it sets up one person in judgement over others",
don't you think this is self-contradictory?
please distinguish between mere breaches of etiquette - not trimming
posts, top posting, getting OT, being longwinded, using smsspeak -
with behaviour that damages the list. The first requires peer
pressure to rectify, but the second can only be cured with the boot.
And i think anything personal you may have against me could be taken
offlist.
Nonsense. You mean to say that ONE spam is going to destroy the list,
while HUNDREDs of OTs and other nuisances are mere breaches of
etiquette. What if I say that the spam was another OT post missing the
appropriate tag? I mean I am simply unable to distinguish.
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
"I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin-deep.
That's deep enough. What do you want, an adorable pancreas?"
-Jean Kerr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
