[Foundation-l] Block update

[Stevertjgo]

Mark W. wrote:
> It looks to me like Austin did exactly what he should've so I'm not
> sure why you're implying he made an incorrect decision. Exactly what
> did he do wrong in your opinion?

Austin may have done exactly right, but his lack of responsiveness - just
as with Arbcom - just as with Cary - made it an issue. As it currently
stands the list moderator has blocked three of my posts on different
threads, and is also ignoring my direct request to be unblocked.

Here's an idea: Arbcom - respond to case subject's questions and comments
and maybe organize some case-centered discussion. Here's an idea: Mailing
list creators - respond to requests for new list creation. Here's an idea:
Mailing list moderators - respond to requests for clarification about
blocks and state blocks openly. 

Nathan wrote:
> Stevertigo is more interested in the debate, in my opinion, than any
> particular outcome. 

I do love to argue, but this comment is not accurate. The truth is I just
like it better when people don't act like dicks. This includes angels,
supermodels, Presidents, founders, Arbcom members, foundation bureaucrats,
and myself (I'm admittedly feeling a bit forced into the concept).
 
> If you find that people don't take your side even after you have "utterly
> destroyed them, point by point" then perhaps you should pick a new approach.

I understand that people don't like having their pet concepts taken apart.
I mean nothing personal by it - simply separate from your defunct concept,
admit cordially that I might have a point, and there will be no issue. 

Sources of bullshit will often think that the bull-fighter is evil. "What
of it? At least the [bullshit] is disposed of." (after Mencken)

-Stevertigo