Puddl Duk wrote:
Well, the point I was attempting to make was that
when the community
exercises it's judgment not to use an image,
its
not censorship.
I know.
Again, if you insist on such a narrow definition
of censorship then
admit that you too censor, every time you have
ever reverted. Or are
you going to keep side stepping this?
I'm not insisting on a narrow definition. I don't
deny that censorship
can be of a type imposed by authority.
I've already responded to you directly on this:
You are right, I missed your post to Jimbo, sorry.
I looked up censorship in three disctionaries, all
definitions operated under power of authority to
decide what 'others' may or may not say.
In this case, voting on whether or not to include an
image, it is the 'others' who have the say. Thats why
its not censorship.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.