Re: Usenet politics

snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>>>>> Maybe the uninvolved should remonstrate with the involved.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I either accept the premise, but: what makes you think
>>>> that they haven't?  Just because something didn't happen on Usenet,
>>>> doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I was only considering this from the viewpoint of the reputation of
>>> the uninvolved members of the SGO; if they don't like being
>>> associated with the Militant Cyclism Party they ought make that
>>> public to defend their reputation.  What happens behind closed doors
>>> is invisible to those outside, so it isn't tremendously helpful on
>>> that count. Please pardon me for making such an obvious point.
>>
>> If two or three uk.misc regulars started making a nuisance of
>> themselves in some other group, say in a cross-posted flameware, would
>> you expect the rest of us to apologize for them?  In practice what
>> usually happens is that the rest stay quiet and leave them to it: if
>> they want to make tits of themselves (or wind up a bunch of idiots, if
>> you prefer to see it like that) that's entirely up to them.
>
> I suspect that to many chiark and greenend are synonymous.
> By all means leave them to it if you wish, it's your reputation.

Is that a yes or a no, as an answer to the question I actually asked?

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

(Sn!pe) (01.11.2009 22:08)