Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:40:15 07/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 1998 at 14:54:42, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 09, 1998 at 13:36:31, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On July 09, 1998 at 12:50:57, Don Dailey wrote: >> >> >>>This is one I would delete. It was a clear personal attack. If it >>>wasn't, what is? Why was it not deleted? If this one is not deleted >>>I do not know how we justify deleting any others, it is not fair to pick >>>and choose these arbitrarily. The next guy can ask why you are deleting >>>one personal attack and not another. I am strongly in favor of >>>simply being consistant. Is there anyone who does not feel this was >>>a personal attack? Did we not agree to delete personal attacks? >>> >>>As far as modifying it, I do not think this is a good approach. I >>>don't mind deleting offensive posts but I don't feel right about >>>changing the meaning because "asshole" certainly has a different >>>meaning than using someones name. >>> >>>It's not our job to edit the content of posts. With personal >>>friendships I do the same, I do not change the meaning of things >>>said about my friends when I pass it along to them, but if something >>>hurtful is said I may choose to remain silent and avoid a lot of trouble. >> >>I think you made the same mistake that Bob did. He didn't call someone else a >>name, it was just a header on his own comments. >> >>The reason he did this is that indirectly I called him this name on r.g.c.c. So >>he's trying to get at me by bringing this stuff here. >> >>Regarding Sean, I would like to try to convince him that: >> >>A) A post of his that he thinks was deleted was not deleted. I'm going to go >>looking for it. >> >>B) CCC didn't give its mailing list to Ed. Sean was angered by an email he got >>from Ed, and assumed for no reason that I can determine that Ed had gotten >>Sean's address from CCC. Steven and Ed deny this, Ed claims that the mail went >>to Sean because Sean had signed up to get mail on Ed's Rebel site. Sean doesn't >>buy this explanation, apparently. I don't know how this can be proven to him. >>I didn't get any email from Ed. Did anyone else get email from Ed or not get >>it? Would some threshold level of "I didn't get the mail" and "I got it, but I >>signed up on Ed's site, or at least might have" convince him? >> >>Regarding additional content of your post, I don't like the idea of editing >>posts either. >> >>As a side-topic, do we want to have a delete-profanity-on-sight system? >>Personally I don't care either way, I can live with either kind of situation. >>Some people seem to feel pretty strongly though. >> >>bruce > > >Yes, I see that I did take this out of context. > >Although I would prefer not seeing the profanity, I would not >favor deleting it unless it is used to attack or hurt people. >If it was used to deliberately hurt the group or drive people >away I would view it as an attack on the group as a whole. >There is no getting around the fact that in some cases a judgement >will have to be made. I just want this to be done as objectively >and consistantly as possible. > >- Don my comment is pretty liberal. I often brand things as "bullshit" and choose to continue to do so. Everyone knows what that means. But it is a far cry from branding someone as "the asshole". Because the latter is right personal, while the former merely says an idea is stupid (stupid IMHO of course.) I grew up hearing bullshit, and don't find it particularly offensive, in that many use the acronym "BS" regularly... But that's far enough to cross the line. Any further and the post clearly should go...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.