Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister | |
PerlMonks |
Re^4: Musing on Monastery Contentby ww (Archbishop) |
on Oct 19, 2004 at 16:11 UTC ( [id://400576]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
apotheon -- I'm "bang on" with most of your observations especially on the wisdom of conjoining "rights" and "responsibilities" in a community such as this... BUT it seems to me if someone -- call that indiviual "A" -- has a "right to retract" and someone else has the right to undo the retraction, A's right is a nullity; meaningless or void.
It appears to me that Old Grey Bear's original posting and tye's response address this contradiction. You have addressed the "fact of life" here but I'd also really like to see your contribution from an ethical or philosophical view. Belated afterthought, in part as addendum to grandparent: a definition of "retract" (from http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/retract, not exactly the OED, but sufficient, I think):
Arguably, definition two could be stretched to approximate "delete" -- but that's a long stretch for a poor approximation. What X tried to do, AFAIK, was not "to retract" in the sense of the first definition, but "to delete" ...and, perhaps not "just by the way," to consign others' views to the bitbucket. That's a very different action. SO DIFFERENT, in fact, that I almost wish to disavow my earlier diatribe because it ignored (to my embarassment and perhaps to others' detriment) the distinction. Consider this a retraction of sorts, but note that it's not a deletion, which would "behead" your valued observations.
In Section
Perl Monks Discussion
|
|