On 29/11/2010 03:39, RussellMc wrote:
>
> SPEAK UP NOW, OR BE HAPPY WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.
>
> _______
>
> And as I said:
>
> "Robust discussion trickling along the borders of politics and
> economics, to make a point, or even tacking perhaps too deeply into
> one or other, may well be fine enough if it has some deep point - or
> may not. However, ad hominem attack and personal abuse are completely
> different matters and are also quite independently not allowed by list
> rules.
> Unlike the present excessively vague rule re "no politics", the
> meaning of "hate" at a personal level has been far better established
> in past exchanges."
>
> Nothing that was said in response addressed that in any way.
>
> You can't deal with rule A being poorly defined by knowingly violating ru=
le B.
> Attempting to do so is liable to be nonproductive.
>

I have not got enough time right now to do this subject justice, so will=20
refrain from going into great detail.
(Very) basically I have no problem with other folks views as long as=20
they conduct themselves in a polite manner - we have to remember this=20
kind of communication (e-mail) can easily put a very one dimensional,=20
unreal view across of a person and their beliefs, which makes it all the=20
more easy to "hate" them.

Although I don't agree with some of them, I have no real problem with=20
Vitaliys comments or views here, and am reasonably sure there is more to=20
him than "someone who stands back and lets houses burn down" :-)
If I take this as an"isolated incident" (I have little knowledge of=20
conduct prior to this - do "previous offences" have an admin weighting=20
factor?) I have *far* more problem with ad hominem "you disgust me",=20
"...slime you ooze..." etc.
I generally enjoy this kind of diversity in the list and the random and=20
varied subjects that pop up, how they often relate to the initial=20
technical subject and so on, though I accept some are more easily=20
offended.  I like the idea of OT and the choice of which subjects to=20
subscribe to, as (in theory) it should help to "protect" the folk who=20
have no wish to be involved in such colourful exchanges - whether OT was=20
intended for this or maybe a new tag might be an idea I'm not sure, but=20
personally I'd be reluctant to "sterilise" a group that seems to have an=20
abundance of "character", and is mostly a pleasant (and certainly=20
stimulating - my main attraction)  place to be.





--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.