On 3/14/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Wherein Delirium calls Jimbo's response "blatantly counterfactual" and with his insistent questioning, seems to indicate that there's no alternative but to adopt his characterization. If that's an overinterpretation on my part, and he's willing to agree that other people can legitimately see these events as not "going over the head" of editors and operating in a "top-down manner", then I would be glad to hear it.
So, we've gotten as far as "it's top-down" 'no it's not' "yes it is" 'fine, call it that if you want'. How about some actual debate? I would say that it's probably not "top-down" because the number of incidents is vanishingly small compared to the total autonomy bestowed on editors 99% of the time. The Queen theoretically has a great deal of power over Australia. Is that "top down" power? I would say no, because it's never used, and it's difficult to imagine a situation where it would be used, and it doesn't affect the way Australia does anything.
But, can someone please actually debate the point, rather than going down those torturous roads of accusing people of breaking free speech or playing semantics ...
Steve