RE: Deprecate _emacs on Windows

[Drew Adams]

> perhaps you could wait until the delayed warning issue is
> decided, and then we can change the warning so it still exists, 

Why should it still exist?

> but users can deactivate it from their .emacs... Sorry,
> I mean from their _emacs.

Why should they have to?

Why issue a _warning_ for this?  As long as a user's `_emacs' is found and used
(traditional behavior) there is nothing to warn about.  And if a user's `_emacs'
is no longer sought and found (i.e. ignored, in the future) then the warning
obviously does no good.

Since when does the mere act of deprecation call for a _warning_?  A warning is
in order only if a particular deprecation means there is some danger to warn
about.  Not the case for this deprecation.  And certainly we should not be
warning about the deprecation itself - there is no danger in that.

> > This phenomenon is a by-product of a unique civil law system gone
> > litigation-crazy.  And the influence extends beyond 
> > Amerika, unfortunately.
> 
> Well, Spain is nowhere near the States in this regard (and I proposed
> and added the warning) so I think your analysis is... silly?
> ridiculous? out of the line?

Yes, I know you did, which is why I added that this has moved well beyond
Amerika.  As I said, a couple of generations and globalization have spread it,
yes, even as far as Catalunya and the Canary Islands.  You might like to believe
you are not so influenced by American culture, but think again.

Other societies often pick up the effects (e.g., ubiquitous non-warning
warnings) even when they don't necessarily pick up the cause (e.g., fear of
lawsuits).

And even if an American corp doesn't necessarily fear a particular lawsuit
abroad, it often applies the same general policy as in the US.  McDonalds in
Paris introduced urinals for the disabled in the 90s - it started applying the
same US-inspired policy pretty much everywhere.  (Parisians sometimes thought
they were kid urinals...)

That's an example of an improvement, but the effects are not always so positive.
Overcleanliness and overprotection have helped lead to antibiotic resistance
worldwide.

An indiscriminate spread of watered-down warnings acts similarly.  When warnings
are everywhere they tend to get ignored as background noise.  Chicken Little and
the Boy Who Cried Wolf eventually got into trouble...  You can't be warning
people of nonsense all the time and then expect them to stand up and take notice
when you really have something to warn about.

---

That said, much of continental Europe itself has a long tradition of
over-warning people.  The Code Napoleon (with an explicit rule for everything,
as opposed to English law's greater reliance on precedence), coupled with a
(necessarily) unsystematic enforcement of the rules, has meant that people are
always breaking some rule or other, and typically not getting punished for it.

It's just a different system/tradition, one where "Defense d'Afficher" is
affiched everywhere.

So yes, there are no doubt multiple reasons why a European might think it
appropriate to "warn" users about such a deprecation.  I don't claim that
avoidance of lawsuits is the only culprit.  I do feel that over-warning has
gotten worse over the last few decades, and corporate America's increased
lawsuit shyness has played a role in that.

Whatever the reasons, it's too bad.  One opinion.