Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
OK, here's what I think.
Let's hear it.
You have shown you are prepared to troll on this list
and others.
You are no doubt referring to unrelated issues with regard to certain
officers. The issues I raised all dealt with obvious lapses in natural
and expectable responsiveness. In no way was this "trolling." On the
other hand, the current noted institutional lack of responsiveness in
certain important contexts, is, in spite of its outward differences,
quite similar in spirit to "trolling."
You can no doubt refrain from that if you so choose.
Given the notable errors in your premise, I understand this to be
advice of only the special kind.
Dragging the thread away from a specific presentation
on BLP to an area adjacent > to a subject you have "discussed" to death is
troll-like.
It is certainly true that I have in recent months raised certain
issues, and people can be unwittingly synergistic in their innacurate
and pejorative characterizations. But if I am not presented with
intelligent and on-point feedback, how then can I assume that such
"discussion" has even been registered in the minds of the classes,
much less scheduled to be acted upon? Hence, again your "troll-like"
stigmanym is misplaced.
If you wish to post a thread about the history of BLP
as
policy, go ahead. You will be less at risk of misconstruction if you
start from your own baseline and statement of your intent.
A valid point in its
essence, albeit with the problem that my
assumptions of good faith are somehow misplaced in certain threads and
not in others.
-Stevertigo
Again, excuse the off-topic comments