greg said:
Branko is a lovely fellow and active volunteer. But no, he doesn't speak for PG or DP.
nobody ever said he did. no volunteer does. but his actions now certainly reflect -- badly -- on both d.p. and p.g., since he has in the past touted his alignment rather obviously, having written entries about d.p. and p.g. at teleread and various other places around cyberspace. but hey, if you don't care, i don't care either... -bowerbird
Bowerbird wrote:
greg said:
Branko is a lovely fellow and active volunteer. But no, he doesn't speak for PG or DP.
but his actions now certainly reflect -- badly -- on both d.p. and p.g.,
You forgot to add "in my opinion." In fact, what you just wrote is borderline libelous because you are painting him as having done something really really bad, and presenting it as FACT rather than your opinion. Since you have not stated, even in general, what Branko edited away, how can the rest of us make a judgement either way? It then boils down to reputation and past history. How do you compare to Branko in those departments? I have my thoughts, and it certainly is not on your side. Now, you may claim that editing *anything* away is evil. But the vast majority of people don't believe this. Libelous, abusive, nasty messages should certain be edited or even removed. Vibrant communities are not grown in a Darwinian (anarchist) environment, but rather in environments where cordiality is maintained and, where necessary, enforced.
since he has in the past touted his alignment rather obviously, having written entries about d.p. and p.g. at teleread and various other places around cyberspace.
This is irrelevant, since the topic of the article he wrote has little to do with DP and PG activities. We all wear multiple hats. I'm a father, a husband, a standards developer, an engineer, an ebook publisher, a 78 record collector, a mountain hiker, etc., etc., one should not latch onto any one role unless it is relevant to the topic at hand.
but hey, if you don't care, i don't care either...
If you demonstrate that Branko deliberately censored some objective and rational thoughts/ideas you contributed to the discussion, then several here would care. That you have chosen not to reveal exactly what was censored (and I *know* you have a very good memory), does not help your case. It's probably best for you, Bowerbird, to drop this. I have not seen one person come to your defense on this, either here or in the TeleRead blog forum. Jon
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Jon Noring