[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[David Gerard]

On 30 September 2011 01:56, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
>> He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
>> manner of names ("who are acting like provocateurs and agitators" that
>> "need to be stopped"), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
>> any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.

> For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to
> make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments
> notwithstanding)...


The worst? The very worst? You're quite sure about that, and not being
hyperbolic?


>I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read
> the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the
> author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to
> put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be
> traced to a single person).


Sue was going on and on about [[:de:vulva]] and the poll surrounding
it and saying those things about her opponents (while claiming her
opponents were of low tone). He seemed to take it that way, and I see
a pile of commenters from de:wp taking it that way. She would have to
have been much less aware of her own words than she is to assume it
would *not* be.

Saying *after* the fact "oh, I don't mean *you*, I mean all those
*other* (unnamed) people" - a variation of the tone argument - doesn't
take away from the thrust of her article: that those opposed to her
have awful tone and should therefore be ignored.

I've been bending over backwards to try to contribute with substance,
but the staff and board attitude, and finally this post from Sue,
really make me wonder why I fucking bother.


- d.