Just want to clear up a mis-interpretation of the rules.... > We know that list rules disqualify "you are a > liar" as legitimate discussion. Yet, if we accept > "lying to get a subsidy", then we are saying that > "you are a liar" is acceptable when applied to a > party that is absent.
I ask people not to call each other liars on the list because it is so often used as a personal attack in lieu of a factual argument. Labeling seems so much easier to the inflammatory types than dealing with the facts first. The biggest problem with calling people liars is that it relies on mind-reading intent - knowing whether someone knew a fact was wrong, or just made a mistake. Given all the rush to inflammatory frothing by some on the list, I think it's best we stick to facts and not mind-read. Using the term "liar" does not depends on a party's presence or absence. If someone said something that was wrong, or said one thing and did another, it's easy enough to dispute the fact and not try to use your supernatural intent-deducing powers here. In other words, err on the side of the facts, and not lazy labels. I'm happy to answer rules questions off list, and post things here if there is general confusion. However, repeated discussion of list rules on list turns this into a dog's tail-chase. We're hear to hash over city issues, not the list for list's sake. David Brauer List manager TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
