On 22/02/2008, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray
<shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I honestly don't see how you can compare these cases. One is an
> editorial decision of no real significance which we can compromise on
> to be polite with no net cost to the quality of the finished product;
A compromise is when each side gets some, but not all, of what it
wants.
As here. They get less prominent use of the pictures - and, more
importantly, an indication that we are willing to think about what
we're doing rather than just be aggressive Because We Can - and we,
er, still have an encyclopaedic article just a slightly
different-looking one! Win-win.
<snip/>
Thank you Andrew for your effort. Unfortunately it doesn't seem
like any of those zealots is willing to compromise. Appeasing
the no-censorship fundamentalists looks like mission impossible.