Rosalind notes:
>Our list manager doesn't want us to use the word "corruption" regarding
>city government. I'm thinking of corruption in the sense of decay or
>decomposition.
Let me clarify: there is no prohibition on using the word "corrupt" to
describe city government or its officials. However, a few list members were
willy-nilly referring to officials they disagreed with as corrupt. In my
view, corruption is a very serious charge - typically, when referring to
elected officials, a criminal accusation. You can certainly make such a
charge here - BUT If someone is being called a criminal, it is the duty of
the list member to explain such the basis for such a serious charge. If not,
the member is guilty of inflamed rhetoric, and that violates list rules.
Yes, it is possible to have inflamed rhetoric about elected officials, too -
they are also members of this forum, and do not deserve to be recklessly
accused of criminality.
However, I do think Rosalind captures the spirit of my ruling in her post -
distinguishing between criminal corruption and a corruption of
values/spirit. That's the sort of precision a responsible forum member
should use when deploying such a loaded term.
If you'd like to discuss this interpretation further, you can email me at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or join/comment at Minneapolis-Rules at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpls-rules
Sincerely,
David Brauer
List manager
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
