--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rick wrote: > > These are all good points Judy and I agree with them. As you know, I have been very reluctant to institute such a policy, for many of the reasons you mention. I consider it to be an experiment, and I'll drop it if it doesn't work. At t this point, my idea of personal attacks and insults are the more blatant, abrasive ones. I have no problem with "you need a checking." I do have a problem with calling someone a f*ckhead or threatening them with physical violence. Let's see how it goes. > I agree with Edg on this one. Rick, if you start to discriminate between "blatant, abrasive personal attacks" and milder personal insults, you really do step into the role of a judge. People are likely to get upset with you, comparing their remark, which you ruled against, to someone else's remark, which they feel was worse but which you allowed. Perhaps for this to work it has to be entirely clear-cut: personal derogatory remarks of any kind not being acceptable.
How is this different from the no-negativity rule you found so oppressive in the TMO, Bronte?
