> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 10:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: James Mark Constantino
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 11:31:54PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Well, we can follow the usual rules for dealing with
> someone that one
> > cares about, but has started exhibiting unacceptable behaviors.
>
> Jeez, if you call posting a lot of strange emails
> unacceptable behavior,
> I sure hope you don't ever have power over too many people.
>
> I'm becoming really disappointed with the intolerance of many of the
> people posting on this matter. Quite a few people, given the
> incredibly
> easy opportunity to ignore something they don't like, choose rather to
> try to inflict their own self-righteous morality on another community
> member and to drive out that community member.
It is easy to say that the group is intolerant, and just as easy to say the
group is too tolerant. We are discussing grades of tolerance here. Eric, you
see things one way, other see it on the opposite. You should not come down
on the list because they are intolerant. Tolerance can be just as poisonous
to the IAAMOAC ideal. You cannot lay claim as to what is too much or not
enough (nor can the opposition). Please accept that we do have different
values. Just because some people can't stand Kook's and you can't stand the
oppressive censor-mad nazi's that we are... When it gets to the point of
using guilt as a tool to influence peoples values... well, I won't say more
on that other that to say no one likes to feel guilty for being themselves.
I was first in suggesting that we warn Mark that on principal that he was
violating Etiquette rules. I suggested that we consider banishment for
continued behavior. I was also the first to say that killfile was not an
effective way to deal with Mark. I also was the first to say that it is not
MY place to decide if action should be taken. I welcomed his diversity, and
even invited it.
Personally, I believe that what your opponents want (the too tolerant
group), is for Mark to stop the behavior of cross-posting. We are not
talking about censorship. we are talking about insisting on following the
tradional norms of posting - you post revelant comments and provide a
context for the comments. One should not cross-post replies to uninterested
parties.
In the same way we allow protestors to march, but do not allow protestors to
become violent mean that we are censoring bastards. While the protestors
message is the same either way, their method of transmission is most
important. I believe that this is the case here as well.
>
> I have no problem with people saying they are offended by something,
> or even passively trying to change something they are offended by, but
> actively prohibiting (as has been proposed) a member of the community
> from expressing themselves freely is shameful. I thought we
> were better
> than that. I hope that such intolerant behavior does not go
> any further
> than it has.
I would say the same...except reversing it... I hope that such tolerant
behavior does not go any further that is has.
Am I a monster for wanting this?
Nerd From Hell
>
> --
> "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://www.erikreuter.com/
>
