Rebecca wrote
Sometimes, Charles, I really do wonder if you read people's posts before replying to them.
Not a fair comment. My point is that consistency cannot under current conditions be instantly demanded, in the form that if Y is just as bad as X etc. It can be demanded in the longer term in the form of precedents; which indeed is something to ask about.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
My point is that consistency cannot under current conditions be instantly demanded, in the form that if Y is just as bad as X etc. It can be demanded in the longer term in the form of precedents; which indeed is something to ask about.
Very well put, yes.
--Jimbo
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:34:54 +0100, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Rebecca wrote
Sometimes, Charles, I really do wonder if you read people's posts before replying to them.
Not a fair comment. My point is that consistency cannot under current conditions be instantly demanded, in the form that if Y is just as bad as X etc. It can be demanded in the longer term in the form of precedents; which indeed is something to ask about.
Couched in these terms, and considering the problems caused by time-lags between decisions (particularly when interrelated), I hope that precedents will arise for speedily issuing partial decisions while working on a complete decision. In this case, for instance, an initial restriction to editing outside of a particular range of articles might have preceded decision on a full ban.
I also hope that precedents for harshness of tone and decision are being consciously made with an eye to future cases.
+sj+