|
959. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:47:02 AM Foghorn Leghorn.
Gawd, I feel better. Phew. 960. Toenails - 2/22/2000 6:47:30 AM
Hey, I'm a lawyer, too! Amazing! 961. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 6:48:17 AM I'm a pepper. 962. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 6:48:35 AM Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too? 963. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 6:49:02 AM Dusty
I'm very sorry to hear that. I hadn't noticed. Maybe one positive outcome of all this is that we should be more vigilant about these things. But I still don't think it can be codified in any meaningful way. It's more a question of the "sense of the community".
But it's late here and I need to think more. 964. Absensia - 2/22/2000 6:49:44 AM erm, what kind of pepper? 965. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:50:14 AM On a more serious note, couldn't a woman claim a personal information violation if they were called a hag or a cunt? A man complain if he is called a dick?
Or is their gender not personal information?
966. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 6:51:23 AM A doctor pepper, of course. 967. Absensia - 2/22/2000 6:53:11 AM hahaha, IJ...and I was thinking habanero. 968. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:53:31 AM But even if it is true that deeply personal revelations have been used against someone, why isn't that just a matter of abuse? If something is out of line, why can't it be handled on those terms?
Frankly, I think many people have had situations where personal information is used to smack them up and down. It's not fun. But I don't think it's something we can ban.
Also, Dusty, I don't think you count as a "meek" poster, which means that any situation involving you doesn't automatically rebut Pelle's point. Unless I misunderstood your post. 969. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:55:51 AM That is not an insult, btw. And I don't think you're an egregious hardass who trods down a path on the bodies of beaten Mote members. But I understood Pelle's point to refer to the "meek". 970. Seguine - 2/22/2000 6:58:49 AM "And I'm not "spamming." I'm doing what people do on-line-- having fun with a fellow poster."
I certainly don't object to your exchange w/Pelle. I do find pointless any attempt to shout above the din caused by the avalanche of interpretive diarrhea you habitually exude.
When you stick to comedy, you're a gem, bucko. When you pretend to think, the room erupts like a grunting chorus of ticket holders at an Arsenio Hall concert. You spam. Any hope of post-pubescent dialogue must thereafter be abandoned by anyone with a life to lead.
Fortunately for my adversaries on the point of this discussion, I do have a life to lead and must now allow all reservations, idiotic analogies, false charges and comparisons, tendentious arguments, misrepresentations, and distortions of my argument to stand, to take root, and to overwhelm everything I've argued.
As it happens, this place has increasingly little part in my larger concerns; ultimately, as things proceed here, I expect it will have none. I've made my suggestions. Take them in part or in whole, or leave them, folks; and enjoy yourselves. 971. Toenails - 2/22/2000 7:09:01 AM
Is it just me, or does Seguine sound a little ...bitter? 972. ScottLoar - 2/22/2000 7:26:49 AM Y'all sound like people with too much time on your hands. Take a recess and cultivate a social life independent of the internet or, better, look to those alongside who tolerate your time on such burning issues as Mote Policy.
You do this on company time I'd fire y'er ass. Oh yes I would. 973. CalGal - 2/22/2000 7:30:14 AM Dusty,
I just read back. You were quoting from a different post of Pelle's.
I still think it stands as abuse, not a privacy violation. But based on Pelle's post, it doesn't matter whether you are "meek" or not. Sorry about that. 974. CalGal - 2/22/2000 7:34:23 AM Scott,
I am not peeved at your post in the slightest, but I do have a question. This conversation began because a few people felt that there was not enough consultation of all forum members over the policy decisions.
But if we have a conversation and invite everyone, some people (and you are by no means the only one) complain that these discussions are needless and destructive.
So it becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Any suggestions on how to avoid this? 975. ScottLoar - 2/22/2000 7:54:12 AM I have no remedy for more active minds than mine will seek and find justification to continue whatever mode of conversation strikes their fancy. Appeals to common sense don't work, appeals to self-respect don't work, ergo the self-indulgence rules, which was exactly my point. 976. cigarlaw - 2/22/2000 8:14:07 AM bamming ace is not enough. first, tie him to a stake and burn him alive with hard copies of his posts.
preferably while shooting him down like a rabid dog.
sorry ace. vox populi, vox deai 977. cigarlaw - 2/22/2000 8:23:09 AM bamming ace is not enough. first, tie him to a stake and burn him alive with hard copies of his posts.
preferably while shooting him down like a rabid dog.
sorry ace. vox populi, vox deai 978. Angel-Five - 2/22/2000 8:29:00 AM Well, I guess there was some discussion after all.
Irv: As you guessed I wasn't going for 'concise'. It was a draft composed in five minutes as a talking point. Feel free to edit.
A few clarifications:
The main point of the RoE revision was threefold. The first was to canonize one notion. 'Moderator's' discretion is in everything. Rather than leave it de facto, I thought to make it de jure, for one simple reason -- to give those who need it a plain and simple statement as to how this forum runs. We can accept it very well but it's nice to spell it out for outsiders. Second point: We can go on and on about how no one reads the fucking rules, as Martin states, but clearly some people do and they go on to argue about them. If no one reads them then at best we've wasted a few man-hours composing them clearly. If some people read them then we haven't wasted time at all; and if people springboard from the RoE to full-blown arguments about who can say what, we've actually saved time by making it clear where the guidelines run. The third point was to codify the notion of undue abuse as undesirable in the round but allow for individual tastes. I think that a thread host wants to delete everything that's even remotely personal in their thread, they should have clean-cut rules on their side to do so. I also think that if a thread host wants to leave in ten-page Ace rants on people, and hundred-post arguments between two bitter opponents which inevitably turns to personal attacks, they should have clear justification for doing so.
|
