> I want to get something clear here, however: Is Liu Xiaobo a Wikimedia
> user and is it possible that he has been banned from zh.wikipedia? If
> so, that is something legitimate to discuss here and continue this
> thread. Certainly people of his stature have participated with editing
> Wikipe
> > If, on the other hand, Peter is actually saying people banned from
> > Wikipedia should have their organs harvested and is volunteering, that
> > is of course a different matter.
>
> We could start with his brain cells, as there seems to be
> something of a shortage. :)
> > His own community
On 10/08/2010 08:07 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Noein wrote:
>
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and
>> what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be),
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Noein wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and
> what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be), but not
> both at the same time.
>
While Peter's intent s
about Liu Xiaobo:
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_08
Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
My blog: http://shizhao.org
twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao
[[zh:User:Shizhao]]
2010/10/9 Peter Damian
> I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. Under
>
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 17:14, Phil Nash wrote:
> Jonathan Swift was at least plausible in that regard (although satire rather
> than irony), because his writing was so obviously pointed that the clever
> people got the message and the stupids didn't. Damian failed in being
> inadequately excessiv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and
what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be), but not
both at the same time.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG
>> Well, do we actually prevent some viewpoint from being expressed
>> adequately?
>>
>> How about a list?
>>
>> Fred Bauder
>
> I have a better idea.
>
> Peter is simply too offensive at times to be an unmoderated list
> participant.
>
> No further discussion is needed...
Well, it's not a promis
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated
>> comparison between the Chinese government's approach to public
>> debate and Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu
>> Xiaobo has been mistreated (which he has been), and also that he and
>> others ha
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>
>> You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison
>> between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and
>> Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been
>> mistreated (which he has be
>
> You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison
> between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and
> Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been
> mistreated (which he has been), and also that he and others have been
> mistreated by
SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 16:11, Phil Nash
> wrote:
>> I expect you might have an apology and weakly-argued defence
>> tomorrow, when you might have sobered up, but right now you are on
>> thin ice in epistemological terms and are closer to a 17-year old
>> newly-"radicalised" stu
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 16:51, David Gerard wrote:
> If, on the other hand, Peter is actually saying people banned from
> Wikipedia should have their organs harvested and is volunteering, that
> is of course a different matter.
We could start with his brain cells, as there seems to be something of
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 16:11, Phil Nash wrote:
> I expect you might have an apology and weakly-argued defence tomorrow, when
> you might have sobered up, but right now you are on thin ice in
> epistemological terms and are closer to a 17-year old newly-"radicalised"
> student than a considered sch
Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Phil Nash
> wrote:
>> Peter Damian wrote:
>>> I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this.
>>> Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by
>>> Chinese judicial
>>> departments for violating Chinese law
>>> h
On 8 October 2010 23:45, Nathan wrote:
> You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison
> between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and
> Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been
> mistreated (which he has been), and also that h
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Phil Nash wrote:
> Peter Damian wrote:
>> I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this.
>> Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by
>> Chinese judicial
>> departments for violating Chinese law
>> http://blog.foreignpolicy
Peter has been placed on moderation as a preventive measure. If
future posts are still civil, irrespective of sanity considerations,
we'll let them through.
Austin
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. Under
>
Peter, I've never heard of Wikipedia sentencing anybody to prison. I
can't support such a comparison between blocking and real-life prison.
Have you ever been jailed yourself? It is not fun. I would much rather
be blocked from all Wikimedia projects forever than spend a week in
prison, especially i
Peter Damian wrote:
> I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this.
> Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by
> Chinese judicial
> departments for violating Chinese law
> http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has
> delivered a ver
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. Under
Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese
judicial
departments for violating Chinese law
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has delivered a
verdict upon him: he is a cri
Liam says:
+
Somehow, I doubt if making *you* "very pleased" is a concern that motivates
many people, especially on this list.
+
Be that as it may, Liam, was there any aspect -- any aspect whatsoever -- of
my request that would not be happily addressed by any transparent and open
non-pr
22 matches
Mail list logo
