Peter Ansell wrote:
On 20/10/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
But it is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE for a human to act in a manner which is no more intelligent than a bot. If you are not going to read when you revert a blanking, you should leave the work to a bot which will generally do a better, faster, and more consistent job than you ... a human who is pretending to be a bot.
You contradict yourself.
I'm also wondering why it isn't "ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE" for the human who originally blanked the article to be acting in a manner that's no more intelligent than a bot as well. We grant newbies a lot of slack, and we grant the aggrieved victims of libel even more slack, but if the inexcusability of this is really absolute then in this case the original blanker is just as much in the wrong.
Can we tone down the hyperbole a bit?