If the entire premise of an email comes down to "I'm taunting you", that's an indication it probably shouldn't be sent.
Dan Rosenthal On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > > Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: > >> On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: > >>> On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???<wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for > >>> > >>> Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was > >>> complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in > >>> empathy. > >>> > >> > >> Trolling much eh David? > >> > >> > >> But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that > >> searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat > >> different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual > images. > >> > > I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and > > unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, > > if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this > > kind of wording, or we are done. > > > > > Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking > would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad > your email provider added that option for you. > > Yet another censorship hipocrite. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
