On Jan 9, 2016 10:43 PM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive > > > > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only. > > I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me saying. that if you check this thread. > > > I stand by every comment I made, and will reiterate them yet again: the COC document as presented is a fascist speech-policing code. It is terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad piece of work. You want to ban me now for being "aggressive"? > > You have the answer to this question in my other replies. Go read them. > > And this is not what I was referring to. For the record. The example you use is bad taste, at best. That's it.
And for the record here to be even more clear. Your earlier replies to this thread were bad yes. No reason to be banned or whatever. Eventually a warning when you go down personal. But the way you communicated your opinion requires way too much energy to filter out the noises to get what you actually try to say. And also prevented other to participate or reply due to the feeling such replies create. So again, I do not see any of these replies as reason to ban you or anyone else. But I can only advice you to continue as you did afterwards as it is by far more constructive and useful than being aggressively provocative and while walking on the red line. I understand this is part of your style but it is rather pointless as we lose both your actual feedback and other who do not join because of that (along other things). Take it as you wish.
