2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
> If he
didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter
> public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels.
>
Thomas Dalton replied:
Do you know that he sought legal advice before
publishing the letter?
If he didn't, then is may not have been an informed choice. If he's
made a strategic mistake by publishing the letter and not keeping
control of the PR then we shouldn't aggravate that unnecessarily.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
ROTFL. He published it; that's a fact. It
would be very rare indeed for
anyone to have sought legal advice before making online comments. The
NPG site, like many others, has a link to its terms of service. How
often does *anyone* who uses such sites ever get legal advice before
proceeding? Some of these require you to agree that you understand the
terms; that's about like agreeing that pigs can fly. Some ask you to
accept the jurisdiction of the courts in the site's home country; does
that really override inalienable rights in one's own country? Is the
legal profession in any position to provide valid legal advice at
reasonable cost to every situation that might be affected?
If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake,
it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a
strategic positive.
This is not a laughing matter. It doesn't matter what the legal merits
are or what is a good strategy, the fact remains that you don't know
what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with you, so just
shut up.
Could we close this thread? It is proving entirely unproductive and
potentially harmful.
I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them
to wilfully mischaracterize my "ROTFL" as applying to the general issue
rather than your silly comments.
I've yet to see any evidence that you know what you are talking about.
Your opposition to any kind of free speech on this by making up stories
about potential harm prove this. Just because your contributions are
entirely unproductive doesn't mean that this applies to what many others
are saying. I may not agree with all of them, but I would not find that
sufficient reason to suppress them.
Ec