On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Bury? I see I have been unclear.
I'm not trying to "bury" a thing. I am saying this is a side issue, which complicates the thread unnecessarily with other issues. You might as well have said "No, I'm *not* going to keep this thread on topic, its far more important to me to move David's blunt approach and my objections to it to center and front. I will accuse anyone who thinks this is muddying the waters of trying to "bury" something, because if what *I* think is important is not addressed with what I consider adequate gravity, they're clearly trying to 'hide' something - because it could not *possibly* be that they disagree that OMG David said some Mean Stuff with Naughty Language The World Will End Oh My!"
Well, it's been one counter-attack after another for some years now, except now it seems to be a full-blown war. Let's see, where did this start? Ah, offencive and sometimes personal material on living persons being posted on Wikipaedia. Sometimes in articles, sometimes as part of the rather ugly banning process. Then what? Wikipaedia resists the blanking/deletion of said material. And then? Criticism sites spring up, and eventually start attacking individual Wikipaedians. Endless cross-site flame wars... on and on and on....
So can someone please let OTRS blank, delete and oversight without so much interference?
If this is still unclear to you, I cannot help you.
Puppy has spoken, puppy is done.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 10:17 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic.
No, I have rejected your attempts to bury this incident.
You have moved your focus from David's post to my plea to not muddy the waters by adding a sub-topic about terminology and phrasing which you find objectionable. Not sure that's an improvement.
Allow me to copyedit David's email, if it will help:
"Perhaps it would be better if you accepted that your personal curiosity cannot be satisfied on this issue. There are sometimes private issues which must be considered, but would cause more harm than good to publicize. I am sure that once the investigation is complete, we will all be informed of the findings, sans any details which are of a delicate or potentially harmful nature. I am certain you will understand, and that you merely did
not consider
the larger issues."
Better? Longer, I'll grant.. but it says the exact same damn
thing, except for
some flattery (I'm not the least bit "certain" he'll get it.) Only
it wouldn't
have gotten to the point so well, and probably would have been lost in the thread. David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
I believe it is time we heard from David himself.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
> Go away, you trolling fuckwit. > > > There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.