On 6 January 2016 02:13:53 GMT, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 5, 2016, at 17:37, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> >wrote: >> >>> Yes, that is an accurate summary of my position. >> >> It is also an inaccurate summary of your statements on this list to >date, as well as elsewhere, which have been accusatory, vitriolic, >insulting, and hyperbolic. > >When speech-policing is proposed without irony, and welcomed with >applause, I respond correctly: with scorn and contempt, as is deserved.
You state this like some kind of self-evident truth. Understand that not everybody agrees with you, and scorn is not generally something that wins people round to your argument. > The "real and legitimate issues" can be addressed without >one, perhaps with the "conflict resolution" document you referenced. It >is orders of magnitude more reasonable Ah, some constructive suggestions. More of this please. >and observably less fascist And, we're immediately back to the unnecessarily combative language. Calling the proposal "fascist" and "horrific" is really unnecessary, and just undermines your position by making you seem like an extremist rather than a concerned party with a contribution to make. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
