On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 11:12:30AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > 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.
Or, people might say, "don't bring that up again, it is not important any more, I have more important things to worry about". But given the clarifications of the guidelines, I am not so concerned about that as I am about people posting comments admonishing the use of certain words. > 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. Okay, fair enough. I think your point about the word being a symptom and not a cause is an important one to keep in mind when discussing incivility. As we all know, it is better to attack the cause than the symptoms if you want to make a real difference. > 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 disagree strongly with this line of thought. I wrote the above before I read this. Do you really think that attacking symptoms will make root problems go away? ` > I do appreciate your opposition to censorship. Thank you. I appreciate that you were trying to help; I don't mean to question your good intentions, only the implementation. *** The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish --Justice Robert Jackson. *** -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
