Miles O'Neal writes:
> Finally, she wasn't rude, brutal, vicious,
> inflammatory, vile, or nasty, so where's
> the beef?
In the interest of flogging a dead horse I must disagree. You are
almost right. She was not brutal, vicious, vile or nasty. She was rude
and judging by the number of people who reacted she was also
inflamatory. People don't tend to be inflamed by non inflamatory
posts.
The point is that this is a civil list. We are not generally inflicted
by people who go outside the bounds. There have not been an excessive
number of people who send inappropriate unsubsubscribe requests. In
fact Amy's post was one of the least civil I have read on this list
and I think therein lies the key to the reaction. A civil list should
be able to handle the Terrence Brannon's of the world in a cival
manner.
When the occasional violator does show up the appropriate response
should be kept private. Public flagellation is only appropriate for
flagrant abuse, particularly where an example to other potential
violators may be appropriate. It is humilating to the violator, who
posssibly deserves it, and annoying to the normal peacable lurker who
definitely does not.
Any private battles Amy wishes to have with Terrence are her
business. She has a perfect right to be irritated, to make her own
judgement of whether Terrence's post was appropriate. It is only when
she inflicts these battles on the rest of us that she crosses the
line.
Uncivil behavior on the list is all of our business.
Final note: now that you have branded me (and others,) in public, as
equivalent to a 'silly J. Random on a "goober pea lovers" list' who is
not 'a rational being, a thoughtful being' I think we have an issue
that should be discussed by our seconds. Amy only annoyed the list;
you offer insult.
There is NOTHING more important to a civil society than civil
behavior. Giving insult is not civil behavior.
