On 31/01/2008, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of my own position on this, it seems a
number of people felt the
domain redirect wasn't entirely appropriate, and I applaud the reasonable
compromise on the part of the maintainers who removed it.
On Jan 30, 2008 10:38 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Any comments from the participators here about
I personally felt it was inappropriate, but didn't think I should draw
attention to it.
Now that we're soliciting comments, I would say that the concern itself is
legitimate but should probably be divorced from anything that could be taken
as a personal jab -- removing or rephrasing the second sentence ("utterly
irresponsible for a parent to do that") would probably remove the potential
for gut emotional offense. People could still read into it, but they'd have
to try harder. I think you can safely apologize for the unintended offense
without suddenly reversing your overall position on pictures of children, if
you're in a mood to do so.
In retrospect, I agree we would have done well to notify the people under
discussion; I was remiss not to make sure this had been done.
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a
firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor
Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the
essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net. I
am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting
children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses child
on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the
risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
I would appreciate even simple comments about how badly things could
be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I
was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be
attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.