Peter Ansell wrote:
On 20/10/06, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)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?