Two issues. Our opinions about what people want to post about here, and a clear line of safety concerning certain content meant to hurt people's reputation offline.
Calling someone an assclown is an entirely different insult than accusing someone of illegal activity. And it is even more critical for a topic like child welfare where people can lose their rational minds and go after someone ala Salem witch trial. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote : I think that people who continued slinging insults at Jim, even after he'd left, demonstrate just as much addiction to conflict online. BOTH sides need to get the fuck over each other. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Jim's post is a serious breach of the FFL guidelines and provides a chilling precedent for online slander meant to cause harm to someone in their real life. I hope anyone who agrees will first delete the slanderous message in the post before commenting. This is way over the line. I almost commented when Jim used a heading with an inflammatory statement just as Nabbie did in his little FU to FFL when he left. I believe it was maliciously intended to get the newsgroup in trouble with Yahoo. But this post is clearly meant to hurt Barry in his real life with a phrase taken out of context. The original context of Barry's hyperbole was to show something so universally considered heinous, that no one would miss his point that people in a cult mindset can overlook what is WRONG. In context it refers to cultural norms and reinforces them concerning child welfare. The intended use was obvious. For Jim to take it out of its context as if it revealed something else is a chilling use of misinterpretation to hurt someone's reputation online. Having been he victim of this myself here I understand how helpless you can feel when this is going on. I needed Rick's help and I got it, and I greatly appreciate that support for my free speech in safety here. I also want to comment on this misuse of a serious topic for a personal vendetta online. It is the lowest form of a get someone at any cost mentality to use child welfare as a pawn in a gotchya game online. By trivializing it by using someone's statement out of context, we add to the static that obscures real harm. People become numb to the accusation when it is misused this way. And in that maliciously generated cacophony, we miss real harm done to real kids by real bad people. I am against Jim's misappropriation of this topic on these grounds also. To pretend his malicious misuse of what Barry wrote is in support of child welfare is the sickest kind of cynicism. Hiding behind this topic to do harm to someone else here is disgusting. Finally, both Buck and Jim have demonstrated that all their faux objections to contentious exchanges here are just that. They are both addicted to conflict online and must leave their other forum to cause trouble here. While I find Bucks constant baiting and trolling obnoxious, it does not violate the reasonable terms of use here. Jim's post did. It makes this an unsafe place to post our opinions if people are allowed to make such real life damaging accusations based on nothing but their own bile and misrepresentation. I hope this forum will be safe place to post in 2015. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
