Bronte wrote:
I agree with Edg on this one. Rick, if
you start to discriminate between "blatant, abrasive personal
attacks" and milder personal insults, you really do step into the
role of a judge. People are likely to get upset with you, comparing
their remark, which you ruled against, to someone else's remark,
which they feel was worse but which you allowed. Perhaps for this to
work it has to be entirely clear-cut: personal derogatory remarks of
any kind not being acceptable.
Judy wrote:
How is this any different from the no-negativity
rule you found so oppressive in the TMO, Bronte?
I think it's quite different, Judy. I'm thinking of an analogy being when our
founding fathers met in forums, discussing whether to break away from England
or not, whether England had the colonies' good intentions at heart or not, what
democracy would look like, all sorts of good stuff. Those guys battled like
crazy in those little meetings. But they were always civil. Plenty of negative
voices! But they were directed at ideas and proposals and governments, not at
the people expressing the ideas, making the proposals or supporting the
policies. I'm sure some of them hated each other -- and anger was part of it --
but their insistence on not getting personal in the meetings keep the
discussion headed in a productive direction instead of getting bogged down in
petty animosities.
In the TMO, no such debate or discussion is allowed. We were told to accept
the brilliance of our leaders without questioning. MMH told the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth and anyone who questioned that was
considered a traitor. We were not only not permitted to speak negatively about
each other, we could not speak a negative position on the TM dogmas. We were
not free to THINK independently and have it be known, without losing our
membership in the group (and therefore our passport to enlightenment!). We
could not SPEAK critically of anything we were told without losing such
passport and membership.
Isn't that fundamentally different from a model for FFL where people can
think whatever they like, speak whatever they like, as long as they don't aim a
verbal missile at another person? People can go on hating each other and
fighting among themselves on their own turf if they like. No lack of freedom
there. But if attack is agreed on as acceptable in this public place, not only
do the people who were aimed at get hurt here, so do the "innocent bystanders."
When you can't open 5 posts on FFL without 3 of them being poisonous, most
people give up trying to find something useful. It's depressing for a lot of
folks to have to watch other folks sniping at each other. They certainly don't
want to participate in such discussions, so they leave.
That analogy someone gave of the old Western town is apropos, I think. Only
when he said the peaceful townspeople ignore the rought bunch and just go on
their way, it didn't work out like that. The peaceful townspeople were always
getting caught in the crossfire.
There used to be 980 people who belonged to FFL. That many are on the
membership list. What happend to the other 960? Where did the party go? Why did
everybody leave? Could it be that when you stop playing nice, few kids want to
play with you anymore?
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
