On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 2:40 PM, curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter violates the FFL rules > <fairfield.li...@...> wrote: > > >> Attempting to bring civil discourse, with respect for diverse opinions >> without name calling and shouting down others would be a noble goal >> here on FFL. Indeed it's part of the FFL rules. But does anyone care >> to have it happen? It doesn't look like it. >> > > Thanks for responding directly. I haven't been following the board > too closely so I don't know what brought it on. I wasn't even > appealing for more civil discourse within posts. I just don't like to > see our names being turned into weapons. It is just my preference. > I'll read back a bit so see if I can find what make you feel so strongly. >
It deals with the decision of some idiots here (and what's interesting is that Ruth, Raunchy and Judy don't get involved) of not bothering to read through posts and instead immediately calling people the R word. Like the R word were the worse thing something could ever be. It's OK to report that you're drug addled and actually seek help in acquiring drugs on FFL, but don't ever get characterized with the R word. On top of that there's Peter's mistaken attempt to out a poster who posts anonymously (against FFL rules) because in Peter's eyes, the person deserves the R word. Interestingly enough others here can carry on thoughtful discussions without using the R charge. But the overly R sensitive people on FFL believe they own the group, it appears.
