At 13 10 05, 09:28 AM, Stephen Davis wrote:
Jim Elwell wrote:
" Perhaps you should address your concerns to Daniel. Or are you
suggesting he get to spew his venom freely?"
No - I'm suggesting that you (and Steven Humphreys) have made your
point now, and continually ganging up on this particular individual
with the aid of Steven Humphreys is starting to smack of boring,
ignorant bullying.
OK. He doesn't share the same viewpoint as you on this particular
matter. That, believe it or not Jim, is allowed. You have made
your point forcefully several times.
Let's drop it now, eh? And move on. That'd be nice.
If you don't want this discussion to continue, why did you post a
private email I sent to only you back into the public forum? Since
you choose to do that, I will respond publicly.
I agree that Daniel is entitled to his viewpoint, as ignorant as I
think it is. However, that does not mean he is entitled to spew it
without response from people who disagree with him.
Since I don't believe this forum should be used to spread bigotry and
ignorance, and since I believe that is Daniel's primary contribution
here, I will continue to respond to him.
Or would you prefer that Stephen Humphreys and I ignore Daniel so
that new members to the forum to think Daniel is representative of us
all? Or do you not agree with Humphreys' point that Daniel is more
damaging than helpful to metrication? (A particularly interesting
point given that Humphreys is not pro-metric.)
Jim Elwell
