For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-) http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.html
regards, southpark On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> This post appears mostly to be the tone argument: > >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument > >> - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to > >> be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and > >> that they should therefore be ignored. > >> This is somewhat problematic. > > > I read a rock and a hard place. So yeah, problematic. By sound, I meant > > from her position. > > > The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against > any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not > acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away. > > As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the > indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will > convince no-one the post claims to be addressing. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
