From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HwXJ7-0001bI-1N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:46:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l585jGP5025191; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 05:45:16 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l585gApQ020673 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 05:42:10 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE8464DFE for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 05:42:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.34 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.34 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.913, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jDp1DQCBRh+q for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 05:42:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0341564CFF for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 05:42:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HwWzq-0007A2-Os for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:26:51 +0200 Received: from 82.152.204.56 ([82.152.204.56]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:26:50 +0200 Received: from slong by 82.152.204.56 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:26:50 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:23:21 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4667A38B.7070308@gentoo.org> <20070607132202.2a9eb9b5.genone@gentoo.org> <466830F9.10101@gentoo.org> <4668373A.9080403@gentoo.org> <20070607175558.46c03a71@snowflake> <46683A33.20803@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.204.56 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: d8e5edae-894a-4e97-a580-6953d60730ae X-Archives-Hash: 5809b0ccfb63ece955b044178b79089e Doug Goldstein wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Steev Klimaszewski wrote: >>> No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we >>> can't have that, no sir. >>> >> It's censorship when it's being done one-sidedly in order to skew an >> argument based upon the prejudices of those doing the banning. >> No that would be *permanently* banning an account from posting with undue cause. Not for 2 weeks or 3 months, but permanently. Even in such an eventuality the poster is free to use another email address. Stalin would turn in his grave.. ;) imo others would protest blatant censorship quite vociferously. After all, look how they react to a 24-hour mute on *one* thread. amne would no doubt have insight into this, as would jmb, but oh dear, we seem to have lost all that experience over one thread. *gg* >> > Or if it's done to you. Careful; what some see as an accurate description of behaviour, others see as "ad-hominem." -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list