On 29/11/2010 07:00, Oli Glaser wrote:
> 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 r=
ule 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
> refrain from going into great detail.
> (Very) basically I have no problem with other folks views as long as
> they conduct themselves in a polite manner - we have to remember this
> kind of communication (e-mail) can easily put a very one dimensional,
> unreal view across of a person and their beliefs, which makes it all the
> more easy to "hate" them.
>
> Although I don't agree with some of them, I have no real problem with
> Vitaliys comments or views here, and am reasonably sure there is more to
> him than "someone who stands back and lets houses burn down" :-)

I didn't think he was suggesting this actually.
> If I take this as an"isolated incident" (I have little knowledge of
> conduct prior to this - do "previous offences" have an admin weighting
> factor?) I have *far* more problem with ad hominem "you disgust me",
> "...slime you ooze..." etc.

Agreed
> I generally enjoy this kind of diversity in the list and the random and
> varied subjects that pop up, how they often relate to the initial
> technical subject and so on, though I accept some are more easily
> offended.  I like the idea of OT and the choice of which subjects to
> subscribe to, as (in theory) it should help to "protect" the folk who
> have no wish to be involved in such colourful exchanges - whether OT was
> intended for this or maybe a new tag might be an idea I'm not sure, but
> personally I'd be reluctant to "sterilise" a group that seems to have an
> abundance of "character", and is mostly a pleasant (and certainly
> stimulating - my main attraction)  place to be.
>
>
>

+1
>

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