On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 5:56 pm, Brock Organ <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Jan 8, 3:41 pm, Brock Organ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I agree with you that would be a nice feature to have. But I wonder >> >> >> if the real issue is the morality and trust of the participants. For >> >> >> example, even having that particular feature won't stop the >> >> >> accusations from someone who wants to eristically and >> >> >> opportunistically abuse it. So I consider that regardless of what >> >> >> features were available, it would still come down to a level of trust >> >> >> among participants, moderators and group owners. And my private >> >> >> consideration is that there is no specific technical feature that can >> >> >> ultimately compensate for abusive and divisive group members. >> >> >> > We're trying not to have any of those, eh? >> >> >> I don't think this forum holds an appeal for them ... :( >> >> > That's good, right? >> >> I guess I have a hope that many of those participants will come back >> at some point, and engage civilly on points of interest. What do you >> think about it? >> > > I am more interested in debating with those who want to do it civilly, > rather than those bent on abuse and divisiveness. Mike is my > mentor!!! ;-)
Nicely put! :) Have a great weekend, Brock
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
