OK, folks, enough! Let's debate this issue on the basis of facts, not nastiness or gratuitous labeling. Minneapolis-Issues has a rule (http://www.e-democracy.org/mpls) that asks:
4. No insults, threats, and inflamed speech for the sake of personal argument are allowed. I interpret many of the adjectives below as falling under insult & inflammatory. I know there are very strong, legitimate opinions on this issue. We want all sides here. However, a condition of membership is that you restrain your most inflammatory impulses for the purpose of keeping everyone at the table to hash out the issue. That does not mean you can't say something is wrong - it does mean you exercise some restraint in the hopes of maintaining a fact-based discussion. If members want calm discussion, they have to model that behavior. If you don't do so, warnings and possible expulsion can follow. But I prefer occasional group rule reminders to further self-policing. David Brauer List manager on 5/14/02 11:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My hat is off. > > Mr. Brown and Luce are very, very good at changing the subject, statistical > obfuscation, name calling, and narcissistic moral preening. I know I'm not > the first to receive their fine-tuned disdain and lofty disapproval, and > will likely not be the last. > > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
