Bowerbird wrote:
jon said:
What changes did Branko make to your comment?
well, i usually don't respond to jon noring on this listserve, because noring, on his own listserve, censors michael hart. (interesting how one censor steps up to defend another...)
Michael Hart is on moderation, as most of the others on TeBC. This tactic of using the wrong word to effect an emotional response ("censor" is just such an emotionally-laden word) is definitely Bowerbird's forte.
but i'll make an exception in this case to give this answer: you don't know what was changed, do you? and isn't that the way that it _always_ is when someone rewrites history?
But you know what changes were made. Your refusal to provide that information only hurts your case. Branko did make a general comment of the nature of the edit, and I support his reason. I know Branko, and know that he would only do editing in extreme cases. I can only assume that your refusal to provide even a general summary is because you don't have any basis to accuse Branko of anything nefarious. Of course, you'll probably reply in Bowerbirdesque fashion that you will not provide the information because I requested it.
josh said:
In other words, leave DP out of it. We don't want to get involved.
i don't blame you!
i wouldn't wanna be involved with someone rewriting history either...
but nonetheless, there branko is, touting connections to d.p. and p.g., and then redoing my blog comments.
"Rewriting history"? Another emotionally-laden phrase that obfuscates what probably happened. Bowerbird has been using all these obfuscatory and emotionally-laden phrases of late: "hype", "censor", "rewriting history", etc. Jon