Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
I do not understand how you
can maintain that all editors would have to bowlderize all of their
edits when for more than 99% of the articles there is no consideration
whatsoever of bowlderization being an issue.
Well there you go. Who said that it wouldn't be an issue in all edits,
for all editors?
I do for one. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single article that
I've contributed to in a significant way that would likely ever need any
sort of bowlderization to meet any reasonable sort of acceptability (not
some hypothetical extreme form of censorship).
Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the word
'sparrow'".
Now you're just being even more exagerratedly silly.
Bkonrad