QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 21st January 2008, 10:31pm)
I don't think of it as a game. It's a very serious editorial decision, and deserves to be treated like one.
I don't think you are doing it on purpose, or spitefully. But the dynamic is very game-like. Or seems so to me.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 21st January 2008, 10:31pm)
The appeals to world events are pretty irrelevant at this point.
<Spits out coffee> Oh really?
Proabivouac, with your vast education, I'm surprised you'd say this.
Wikipedia-en is a worldwide publication, which provides what would (sadly) pass for the opinions of mostly north american anglophones (heavily peppered with Europeans and UK). Do you really think that it has no weight or meaning in politics, social perceptions and hence world events? Come on.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 21st January 2008, 10:31pm)
Even if the issue were in play at that level, it wouldn't follow that acquiescence would be the right answer.
This is part of the problem. Giving (to) some people some-thing that matters much to them, (from) a group of people who don't have any real stake in the 'get', is not acquiescence, it is **negotiation**.
aka. pick your battles.
My take is that most people arguing hard for a keep are treating this like a debating society case, where freedom of speech is the main issue. It isn't the main issue at all. I like very much how the Supreme Court handled the same issue. Respecting free speech while respecting the strong sentiments of the aggrieved. It worked. I simply don't see that on this issue, sadly.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 21st January 2008, 10:31pm)
Possibly the answer lies in their minds, and not ours.
Most thoughts and feelings, of every person, originate from the mind.
The problem is with the 'keeps' is that they refuse to see that the mindset of the 40,000 signatories have credence.
This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: