Liam says:
+
Somehow, I doubt if making *you* very pleased is a concern that motivates
many people, especially on this list.
+
Be that as it may, Liam, was there any aspect -- any aspect whatsoever -- of
my request that would not be happily addressed by any transparent and open
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. Under
Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese
judicial
departments for violating Chinese law
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has delivered a
verdict upon him: he is a
Peter Damian wrote:
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this.
Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by
Chinese judicial
departments for violating Chinese law
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has
delivered a verdict
Peter, I've never heard of Wikipedia sentencing anybody to prison. I
can't support such a comparison between blocking and real-life prison.
Have you ever been jailed yourself? It is not fun. I would much rather
be blocked from all Wikimedia projects forever than spend a week in
prison, especially
Peter has been placed on moderation as a preventive measure. If
future posts are still civil, irrespective of sanity considerations,
we'll let them through.
Austin
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this.
Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by
Chinese judicial
departments for violating Chinese law
On 8 October 2010 23:45, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison
between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and
Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been
mistreated (which he has been),
Nathan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this.
Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by
Chinese judicial
departments for violating Chinese
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 16:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If, on the other hand, Peter is actually saying people banned from
Wikipedia should have their organs harvested and is volunteering, that
is of course a different matter.
We could start with his brain cells, as there seems to
SlimVirgin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 16:11, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
I expect you might have an apology and weakly-argued defence
tomorrow, when you might have sobered up, but right now you are on
thin ice in epistemological terms and are closer to a 17-year old
You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison
between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and
Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been
mistreated (which he has been), and also that he and others have been
mistreated by
Fred Bauder wrote:
You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated
comparison between the Chinese government's approach to public
debate and Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu
Xiaobo has been mistreated (which he has been), and also that he and
others have been
Well, do we actually prevent some viewpoint from being expressed
adequately?
How about a list?
Fred Bauder
I have a better idea.
Peter is simply too offensive at times to be an unmoderated list
participant.
No further discussion is needed...
Well, it's not a promising start, but I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and
what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be), but not
both at the same time.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 17:14, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Jonathan Swift was at least plausible in that regard (although satire rather
than irony), because his writing was so obviously pointed that the clever
people got the message and the stupids didn't. Damian failed in being
about Liu Xiaobo:
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_08
Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
My blog: http://shizhao.org
twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao
[[zh:User:Shizhao]]
2010/10/9 Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and
what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be), but not
both at the same time.
While
On 10/08/2010 08:07 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Noeinprono...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and
what he said. One or the other can be justified (and
I want to get something clear here, however: Is Liu Xiaobo a Wikimedia
user and is it possible that he has been banned from zh.wikipedia? If
so, that is something legitimate to discuss here and continue this
thread. Certainly people of his stature have participated with editing
Wikipedia
19 matches
Mail list logo
