libreplanet-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ‘censorship’


From: David
Subject: Re: ‘censorship’
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 23:30:15 +0100

Absolutely yes, and I did so as your mail to me was private. If someone
sends me a private mail I follow suit but I've nothing whatever to
hide on this topic. That said if you ever wish to contact me
privately please do feel free to do so and know that I'll keep any
private contact confidential.

David Nash

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:11:51 +0300 Dmitry
Alexandrov <address@hidden> wrote:

> You replied privately, offlist.  Was it intentional?  If yes, why: I
> see nothing secret there?  If no, may I resent it back to the list?
> 
> David <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300
> >> Dmitry Alexandrov <address@hidden> wrote:  
> >> > David <address@hidden> wrote:  
> >> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction
> >> > > IMHO as the very same core points could have been made in a
> >> > > less excitable manner without potential breaching of the above
> >> > > linked guidelines  
> >> > 
> >> > That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due
> >> > to form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No
> >> > dictionary available to me suggest it.  
> 
> >  Sorry to double send but, on review, I think a bit more
> > explanation is needed.  
> 
> >  the points in question can avoid censorship, or hit it head on,
> > depending on how they are put. Daniel was triggering
> > blocking/censorship head on by stating his points in a way which
> > breached the guidelines on many levels  
> 
> >  It would have been a rather trivial matter for Daniel to have
> > stated his key points in a non-controversial way  
> 
> >  I hope I've clarified this for you now but if I can be of more
> > assistance please let me know.  
> 
> Thank you for a thorough explanation of censor’s motives.  But... I
> suppose now, my question was poorly phrased: I had to clarify, that
> it actually has nothing do to with Daniel’s letter specifically, but
> to ‘censorship’ in general.
> 
> As you noticed, I am not an Anglophone, so on reading your remark, I
> suspected that I misunderstood how the word ‘censorship’ is used in
> English.  To me it looked (and still looks) fully applicable to
> forbidding expressions as well as ideas.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]