From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-08-17T05:11:38+09:00
Subject: Re: About ruvi

Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>Now, let's all repeat:
>>"Free Speech, Free Speech, Free Speech"
> 
> 
> A number of folks from #ruby-lang have used this defence in the last
> couple of weeks. Here's a clue: free speech doesn't work that way.
> Free speech includes taking responsibility for one's words. There
> are no moderators on ruby-talk or clr. Absolutely no one has
> suggested that the people involved stop releasing software or
> talking about it on the list.
> 
> This isn't, has never been, and will never be a free speech issue.
> It is a discussion about misleading claims regarding a project that
> otherwise looks very interesting. I would suggest to Alexander that
> he change the claims because otherwise people will be very
> disappointed.

If you're going to argue for free speech, go all the way.  I'd like to 
think that any rights to free speech  include the right to say, "shut 
up," however impolite.

It's worth noting, though, that it rarely has the effect one seeks.

Curiously, those pointing out the misleading claim of ruvi being a vi 
clone ("It's just like vi. Except when it isn't, which is most of the 
time.") are helping the project.

Potential users expecting to find an actual vi clone will be 
disappointed, and will knock it for the things missing, rather than 
praising it for the good things it offers.

Either way, nobody's speech is being threatened.  People can say what 
they like. It's just that it cuts both ways.

I think most would prefer that people demonstrate some eloquence and 
tact, but, if not, there's always the kill file.

James