OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Steve Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:43:06 +0000, John Reimer wrote:

> Hello Steve,
> 
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:01:49 +0000, John Reimer wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Steve,
>>> 
>>>> This is the same kind of attitude, John, that brought about the death
>>>> of Alan Turing.
>>>> 
>>> That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very
>>> hasty reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you are
>>> quite unfamiliar with.
>>> 
>> I'm just pointing out the similarities.  Of course there are
>> differences in the case of Alan Turing, but I don't think I have to
>> know you to interpret your post?  You don't like the furry creature
>> drawings (or specifically one drawing, which supposedly depicts
>> something "close" to beastiality), and I get that.  But suggesting that
>> someone's artistic preference should preclude them from contributing to
>> D is in my mind a form of discrimination, and it seems uncalled for.  I
>> agree with Nick about how you should have gone about this, and I'm glad
>> you see that now.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Just a quick response here.  You seem to infer that I suggested that he
> stop contributing to D. I did not.  I suggested a separation of the
> display of his other interests from his D material that gets displayed
> here (specifically I requested  "that you disassociate /it/ completely
> with your dealings with D").  I think that particular request was fair,
> and it seems that he was considerate enough to respond to the request or
> at least part of it.  This should not be compared to ostracism.  I just
> wanted to clarify that part.

OK, I was thinking about the case where bearophile was less 
accommodating :)  If the link was bearophile's requirement (which it 
wasn't, and I think he was happy to oblige to your request) for inclusion 
of his work, then the only recourse would be to remove the work.

As it turns out, that was not the case, but we hadn't heard from him at 
the time I wrote this :)  In any case, I agree the request was fair.

> Ostracism in a group like this would make no practical sense because I'm
> sure the whole group would disappear for one reason or another :P (and
> I'm sure I would be the first to be ostracised.)   Although it seems
> that the right to ostracise trolls still exists. Poor guys. :)

I don't think ostracism is necessary.  People who are jerks (not meaning 
you) get called out as such, so usually there isn't a problem with that.  
I take more offense to a person saying that an idea is stupid or 
worthless than I do to swearing or trolling.

> Yes, the mode was completely indelicate however disturbed I was at the
> time.
>  I am not at all satisfied with how I carried that one out.

Water under the bridge now.

-Steve