That's a reasonable post reasonably put. A nice change for the recent discourse here.
If you have any contention as to why the "deal" would not be on
everyone's best behalf, I would like to see it spelled out.
Why is it in my best interests to make any "deal" at all? A deal implies benefits to both sides. Where is there any benefit to me in agreeing to anything? I don't see it. Nobody else is being restricted by it. c.horn isn't being restricted from posting things so obviously over the edge that they get deleted (none of my posts on this issue have had to be deleted.) The snipers will never be satisfied. Appeasement has long been recognized as an ultimately destructive strategy.
If I did make any kind of agreement, the sniping wouldn't stop, it would just move to issues of whethe the agreement was violated if, say, I respond to the content of an article which Poet posts.
As far as I'm concerned, the TOU are there, they exist, and they are sufficient.
If anybody doesn't want to read anything I post, they are free not to.
If anybody doesn't even want to see anything I have posted, they have the ignore button.
Now, I invite you, but not anybody else since you're the only one who seems to care about the substantive issues here, to tell me why that isn't a perfectly reasonable position to take?
I don't see any reason why I shouldn't just go on posting under the TOU and not impose any other restrictions on myself or any other poster. |
