[teejers1]

In paragraph three of your post, you talk about hurt feelings, while in paragraph one lamenting that garvin left. Garvin is a great guy, incidental to my point, and I wish he'd come back. I own his very good book on Nicaragua. But these points are in tension to me because leaving an internet sports board forever because of an intention to limit political asides (implemented IIRC because of some pretty racially insensitive posts, that were NOT made by garvin to clarify), that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

So, to you there is no principled difference between stifling commentary versus allowing commentary (particularly among bright adults)?  
People upset by either equally have their panties in a bunch?  

Hmm.

But hey, it's the Internet, so no need to expect anyone to change minds.

[teejers1]

In paragraph three of your post, you talk about hurt feelings, while in paragraph one lamenting that garvin left. Garvin is a great guy, incidental to my point, and I wish he'd come back. I own his very good book on Nicaragua. But these points are in tension to me because leaving an internet sports board forever because of an intention to limit political asides (implemented IIRC because of some pretty racially insensitive posts, that were NOT made by garvin to clarify), that's sort of the ultimate panties in a bunch move.

So, to you there is no principled difference between stifling commentary versus allowing commentary (particularly among bright adults)?  
People upset by either equally have their panties in a bunch?  

Hmm.

But hey, it's the Internet, so no need to expect anyone to change minds.