[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>> Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
>>> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers.
>>
>> "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and
>> its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were
>> open proxies."
>>
>> Is that still in effect?  If so, whatever slippery slope there is, has
>> already been begun.
>
> The obvious difference here being this was a ban of IP addresses owned by a particular organization,
> not the people behind it

I guess I've interpreted "its associates, broadly interpreted" too
broadly :).  Seriously, how is "its associates, broadly interpreted"
supposed to be interpreted?

In any case, yes, there's a difference.  But there's always a
difference between the beginning of a slippery slope and the end of
it.  That's the whole point of a slippery slope.