[proper_elb]

> A further counterpoint: if you follow the Fence proponents' logic to its conclusion you can never remove any code which is clearly an absurd situation.

No, that would only be the case if one would never understand any code. Chesterton's Fence consists of two parts ("understanding some code" as a precondition to "removing some code"), and leaving one or the other part out makes it some other thing than what Chesterton's Fence means.

> The real blame lies with the person who built the apparently useless fence and didn't put a sign on it explaining why it shouldn't be removed.

Chesterton's Fence is not about blame, or the past in general - it is about how to deal with things that are in the present. (Although I agree that the original fence-builder should have left a note or two!)