Andre, if you really want free speech and you do indeed like people which have strong opinions then I really don't all understand what all the fuzz is about anyway; because on that basis Matthias' complains fall under free speech in exactly the same way as Davyd's post. If you want freedom of speech then you get the full package including people complaining about other peoples writings. And if the solution is that one just ignores postings that one disagrees with then we don't get any discussion at all and everybody just gives monologues.
Um, how about actually _discussing_ whatever the original arguments were (about Bush or whoever), instead of continually going in circles about who has the right to write what?
interesting point. :-)
people of course are free to criticize others, sure. but what i criticize is when people tell other people to shut up (and sentences like “please stop annoying us with your vegetarian posts on Planet GNOME†is one of them), because this suppresses freedom of speech. it’s the old question: shall i also be tolerant towards people that are intolerant? i mostly am, i think. but shall i “offer†freedom of speech to those that want others to not speak? a good question, seems like this is the one exception that i feel, and that i wasn’t aware of before your posting.
i don’t want monologues, sure. but if you kind of insult people with a simple “shut upâ€, that’s not really a start of a “dialogue†to me. when writing my post i maybe also had the gnome code of conducts in my mind that i support, and did not mention it.
but in the end i have to admit that you’re right, looked like a contradiction, thanks a lot for pointing it out! :-)
bi, yes, and I tried to make that very point. Maybe that didn't get through. ;-/ I do in fact realize the irony and the paradox (or dialectic if you wish) that lies withing making such a statement (which also partly applies to your comment!).
Andre, yeah, you really do point the finger on the right problem: Do we offer people the right to speak freely if they are telling other people to shut up. I *imho* think we really need to tolerate such statements. I also think that you are totally right that this freedom stops when you cross some well defined borders like politeness, etc. But, funny enough, Matthias, when telling Davyd that he finds his posts "annoying", didn't cross this border of politeness but it was Davyd (whose freedom of speech you are trying to protected) who told Matthias to "eat a dick".
maybe we have different interpretations of the sentence "please stop annoying us with your vegetarian posts on Planet GNOME" - for me it's a "shut up on that topic" and a difference to e.g. "vegetarian postings are annoying". and yes, i have to admit that davyd also wasn't that polite with his answer. :)
Thanks!,