On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:45:04 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
I think that we probably agree on more than you'd think here, but just
to pick up on one thing:
It's not the validity of those concerns that I
dismiss, it's their
inflexibility.
That is precisely my point - "censor" is a word which is a pretty
reliable marker for inflexibility. AMiB's Brandt close was the
precise opposite, it was a thoughtful rather than an absolutist
judgment. It is supported by a number of people who have advocated
both keep and delete in the past. It is opposed by a number of people
who appear to take an absolutist stance, one way or the other.
I don't actually care overmuch whether we have an article on Brandt or
not, I think I have !voted keep in the past if only to end the
ridiculous fighting, but this close does seem to me to be a genuine
attempt to resolve the tension between those who want to cover someone
because they have done something good/bad/stupid, and those who feel
(reasons which are at least as good) that we should aspire to rise
above such foolishness.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG