On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 1/29/2002 7:41:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Erik wondered:
> > > Was this supposed to be posted to the list? I thought I read everything
> > > JDG posted and I never saw a violation. What is this in reference to?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:44:09AM -0500, Eileen Tan wrote:
> > > > JDG: Congratulations. You're now one step closer to being banned from
> > > > this list.
> > > >
> > > > The etiquette guidelines are there for a purpose. I'm not going to
> > post
> > > > it here now; and it should have been posted often enough that everyone
> > > > should know it right off anyway.
> > > >
> >
> > I saw nothing I haven't done in the past, so I was rather mystified by
> > this,
> > also.
> >
> > Is arguing with Jeroen now grounds for banishment?
>
> I'm not sure, but calling Jeroen a 'Nazi' might have had something to do with
> it. Someone else called him a 'fucking nazi' a few weeks ago. (Might have
> been Dan S. or Tom, although I'm not entirely sure.)
JDG did *not* call Jeroen a Nazi.
JDG *did* liken Jeroen's methods of argument to Nazi methods.
There's a difference. However odious the comparison is, it is *not* the
same as out-and-out name-calling. I think that JDG is aware of the
etiquette guidelines and, aside from the recent shouting, is careful to
conform to them, however close he comes to the line.
The other poster *was* out of line, I agree, but that's not JDG's fault.
Now, I'd be a lot happier if we could just drop the Israel problem from
the list of active debate topics for a couple of weeks, let tempers cool
down, and maybe go back to discussing _Glory Season_. I'll even dig my
copy out of the disaster zone that is my desk and try to participate, if
that'll help. The Israel/Palestine issue seems to be too hot for some
people to handle reasonably right now, and it's affecting the tone of the
rest of the list, and not for the better. But that's just my opinion.
Julia
