From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bronte Baxter Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:39 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Policy and updated guidelines
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. HYPERLINK "http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3920196/grpspId=1705077076/msgId =148594/stime=1189357692/nc1=3848642/nc2=4617366/nc3=4776369" 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. Sometimes it’s hard for me to tell what’s derogatory. When I first introduced this topic, Bob Brigante said, “Piss off, you idiot” and I took that as humor. Edg has a problem with Nabby’s “You need a checking.” The obvious implication is “you’re meditating incorrectly and if you were really doing TM properly then you would be thinking clearly, like me.” Is that a personal derogatory remark or just a reflection of Nabby’s world view, which doesn’t trouble me in the least? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM
