--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:17 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK > > > > Write the ticket and get on with your life so > I can get on with mine. Don't keep standing > there demanding that I apologize to you. I have > *no problem* with paying the fine. But just > write the ticket and stop demanding my attention. > Being booted off of Fairfield Life is the fine; > indulging your or other people's desire to be > apologized to isn't. > > I have no desire to boot you or anyone off, nor do I need you > to feel remorseful or anything else. If you (or anyone) were > to say to hell with the rule, I'm going to keep flaming, and > then you did so, I'd boot you off. But you're not continuing > to flame, so on with the party.
OK, Rick, look, he's been flaming off and on since the agreement not to flame was put in force. This is just the latest instance. You chided him gently the first time (when he called Bronte and idiot), and he said then it was OK with him if you threw him off the forum for doing so. The insult was perfectly justified, as far as he was concerned. Then you stopped reading for awhile, and he continued to flame during that period. You start monitoring again, and find he's just delivered another flame, but because he doesn't *say* "the hell with the rules, I'm just going to keep on flaming"--even though continuing to flame is what he has actually done--you give him a pass. In terms of what he *says* about flaming, he's a lot stricter than you are. For example: "In general, anytime someone tries to justify 'attacking back' they are trying to justify a personal attack that was just made by them. It couldn't be any clearer. In their minds the personal attack may be justified, but the very fact that they *are* attempting to justify it shows that they know it was a personal attack, and thus against the FFL guidelines." So he has in effect acknowledged that he knew his flame at mainstream was against the FFL guidelines (although the quote above is from an earlier post). You seem to be suggesting now that it's OK to flame as long as you don't prolong it and don't explicitly proclaim your intention to defy the rules. Is that what you mean to convey? If so, does that apply to all of us, or just to Barry? (Bonus quote from Barry, to be read in light of his elaborate justification for flaming mainstream in the discussion on abortion: "Beliefs and opinions are easy to fixate on, and to confuse with Truth. And when someone pokes at one of the things you confuse with Truth, you react. The reaction is NOT justified, no matter how hard you try to justify it."
