Subject: Re: [boost] [trolling] Alexander's crusade
From: Gregory Crosswhite (gcross_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-09 23:35:33
On 5/9/11 7:33 PM, Gruenke, Matt wrote:
> On Mon 5/9/2011 8:27 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
>> it nonetheless needs to be acknowledged that after his opinion was
>> heard and people stopped asking him questions about it he allowed
>> the matter to be dropped,
> I'm not so sure it *needs* to be acknowledged. If we start down that path, I can imagine several other aspects of this thread that people might feel an equal or greater need to have acknowledged.
When people start talking about unsubscribing someone for being a troll
because the supposed troll keeps insisting on bringing a stupid
offensive issue up then the fact that the supposed troll was the one who
allowed the issue to be dropped until others insisted on bringing it
back to the forelight is something that does need to be acknowledged in
the interest of fairness.
>> it was others who insisted on resurrecting the thread and directly provoking
>> him until he responded.
> "Provoking"? That's an interesting perspective. I followed the entire thread and while I recall a lot of confusion and frustration on the part of list contributors, I do not recall much in the way of outright provocation of Alexander. On the other hand, was his initial subject ([boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?) not a clear acknowledgment that provocation factored prominently into his objectives? It's one thing to side with his argument (assuming it's appropriate for the list), but to defend his behavior in this thread seems unnecessary.
Sure, Alexander posted a lot of offensive conspiratorial nonsense in his
original posts and I have never said anything to defend it nor would I
--- in fact, I even teased him for it when I realized what was going
on. If you want to talk about banning him based on that alone then fair
enough, just don't take the fact that we are still talking about this
one week later as evidence that he is refusing to drop the issue and
therefore a reason itself to ban him; that is really all that I am
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk