Quoting Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Blocking socks indefinitely will not resolve the
problem true, but
protection
doesn't resolve it and the damage as a precedent is far worse.
Maybe somebody
will try a really radical solution -- like talking with
somebody instead of hitting him over the head with a blunt template.
This appears to have been tried, repeatedly. That doesn't seem to be relevant
here.
If the
situation is so serious that we need to consider this sort of
measure then the
Foundation should be looking into providing more direct assistance,
possibly using legal
means.
The problem with bringing this kind of thing to the Foundation is that
it sounds too much like saying, "Mommy, brother isn't playing fair."
No. The Foundation exists to support the project. This isn't ""Mommy,
brother
isn't playing fair" this is "Mommy, that man wants to kill our entire
family
including you. What should we do?" We aren't dealing with a "brother"
acting in
good faith but a systematic POV pushing campaign by an insidious cult.
In case anyone
is considering extralegal means, I'll incidentally note
that assassinations have an unpleasant history of creating martyrs (and yes,
that remark is meant to be humorous).
In our context an assassination may be a
somewhat more benign extralegal
means than copyvios or libel. :-)
That's true at some level, and I can't figure out if that's reassuring
or really
scary.