Stevertigo wrote:
What a silly man you are Edmund. Anyone who looked at
the page knows JiL got
way more thumbs down --and all the other votes were scattered. You try to
say 1.5 actually objected -- when you should have said "took offense" -- big
difference. Theres has never been in any voting system that I know of for a
process by which people must legitimize their vote somehow in accordance with
another subjective standard. Silly Ed.
But there /has/ been policy for offensive usernames
that they are to be changed because the /cause offense/.
You're right, Ed should have said that only 1.5 "took offense".
But it is still significant that this is a small number.
(BTW, my position changed from "Don't understand the fuss" to
"Abstention"
the moment that somebody said that they were personally offended.
But I haven't been able to edit the talk page yet.
It may change further depending on JiL's responses
to attempts to convince him to choose a new name volunatarily;
but I haven't been able to read his responses yet.)
-- Toby