Wed Apr 2 21:40:47 CDT 2008
I agree with everything David, Scott, Brett, Michael etc.. have said. I
will not add to the "argument" for allowing removal.
Kerpen deserves the thanks of the community for running this list. No one
disputes this. For a community that touts itself as taking care of its own
(for which I think there is good evidence) there doesn't seem to be that
sentiment in either Hester or Antonucci's apparent disdain and condemnation
on this subject.
Why isn't the response simply: Of course, lets see if we can take the post
down because it might hurt Kacey in her employment. Really, it's an edebate
post that can be easily removed and it helps someone who is a part of our
community. Isn't that the goal?
Anyway, I'll go back to studying to become a member of a profession that
apparently involves people who...well whatever
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:28 PM, David Marks <dgm2109 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> I will not make another post on this issue after this.
> Antonucci, I really like you and respect you, but no one has yelled at
> Kerpen besides Kacey. I've been solely responding to the anti-Kacey posts
> and their willingness to discount everything she said because she also
> happened to say something stupid (scapegoating and criticizing Kerpen).
> Nonetheless, I don't think your infantilizing of my concern (which has
> been validated by many others) is any more mature than the yelling you
> First, most of the discussion says something should be done if possible.
> No one is saying the whole burden should be on Kerpen. The discussion so far
> has been, "let's talk about this so we can realize there's a problem, and
> then try to work together and do something about it. BTW, Kerpen is
> awesome." Some people have already volunteered to try to help. Every single
> subsequent post has included a "Kerpen is great" or similar line.
> Second, you're flat out wrong that people should not be allowed to say,
> "uh.... can something be done about this" just because they don't know html.
> Those people are the ones being affected. Argument by analogy is all the
> rage these days. Should an illiterate person who works 18 hour days not be
> allowed to say something about legislation that directly affects them
> because they can't read or write a better bill? Does that mean they don't
> appreciate their representatives who also work hard for them?
> I'm sorry you think this is some sort of over-reacting "the partners are
> watching!" scream but frankly it's reality for some of us. If you're a
> lawyer, your clients will google your name every single time. It's no
> Antonucci circa summer 1997, but please don't dismiss as childish concerns
> expressed with genuine feeling by many of your friends.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman