Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:29:06AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > Look, it was a politely worded request, and I *specifically* stated
> > that I was not acting as listowner with this request, just someone who
> > was trying to relax with e-mail while breakfast was making.
>
> And you are STILL criticizing me for starting a discussion about
> something that is important to me. It is your perogative to do so, of
> course, but don't expect me to be quiet about it. If you ask me not
> to use certain words, you need to expect that I might want to discuss
> it. If you don't want to discuss it, then you might want to consider not
> making the request.
No, that's not what I was responding to there; you cut that part. You
brought up that a listowner had made the post, and I was objecting that
I wasn't acting as a listowner.
> > If you don't like the community standard, wait until everyone has had
> > a chance to calm down from reacting to your position, and then put
> > forward a proposal that doesn't look like a knee-jerk reaction and
> > maybe more rational discussion can take place.
>
> I might say the same to you about a discussion that started as a result
> of an admonishment that you posted. Of course, I wouldn't really mean
> it since I'm all for discussions. But it would be consistent with your
> argument here.
Well, what I had read this morning was that a number of other people
were reacting to you, and that you would be better served in waiting
until the general reaction died down if you *really* wanted to have a
discussion that might result in changing the specific item in the
Etiquette Guidelines. Maybe I was out of line on Thursday, but the
general feeling I'm getting this weekend is that the majority of the
people who care enough to respond to you in the context of the
discussion that I started on Thursday is that you're wrong on objecting
to it. If you give it a few days past *your* last post (since a lot of
what's happening right now is reaction to your posts and your responses
to people), you might have better luck in persuading people you're
right.
> > Neither of the posts I was objecting to were anywhere *near* as bad
> > (think about the distance of Pluto from the Sun, as opposed to that of
> > Mercury), but they weren't civil.
>
> Then why on earth (or pluto or mercury) did you bring up using certain
> words in this case? Why not stick to the "uncivility" that was
> apparently the problem for you?
Because the word was the easiest symptom of the incivility to jump on.
And I haven't had enough sleep for about 10 or 12 days now, so I wasn't
thinking as clearly as I might have been. I'm sorry wasn't clear
enough. I think that Jim clarified my position better than anyone else.
> > As a reader of posts and a participant, I just wanted a little more
> > civility on-list. Is that too much to ask?
>
> No. Why didn't you ask it without bringing in other issues?
Again, the specific word I jumped on was symptomatic, and I figured that
if that symptom were addressed, that maybe the *worst* of the problem
would go away.
I do appreciate your opposition to censorship.
Julia
