This is very well written Bill. And it highlights the main reasons I haven’t wanted to get into judging and banning FFL members. Exceeding the 35 post limit is simple to deal with; trying to define and enforce standards of decent conduct is a can of worms. Bronte and New Morning did influence my thinking on this, as I respect them both and they represent a legitimate point of view here. Personally, I lean towards the laissez-faire approach that has worked pretty well on FFL for six years. But I’m trying to accommodate all these preferences.
Let’s try this: the next time someone attacks the person rather than the points, let’s take a look at what he/she has done, see if we all agree that that’s what has happened, or whether it’s largely a matter of individual perspective, and see whether the alleged offender, if judged guilty, concurs with the group consensus and agrees to refrain from such behavior. Then I’ll mete out a sentence, or won’t, depending on the circumstances. Essentially, I’m suggesting trial by jury, for the very reasons that process was established – to protect against the potential biases of one individual’s perspective. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of billy jim Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 6:02 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furher Rick, clarify this for members: Define "gratuitous profanity" and also help me understand "non-gratuitous profanity". I want to be able to use non-gratuitous profanity (if I deem it important) without you censoring me or initiating an administrative reprisal. What comprises a "sexist slur" since we must assume that you have intentionally demarcated it from the more usual "profanity" to be able to monitor it. What about racist slurs? Is “trailer-trash” permitted but “white, trailer-trash” forbidden? Is the visually, literal euphemism "f*ckhead"(which you have used in your email about the new guidelines) an example of an allowed or disallowed term? So … Don't want to explicitly answer these questions? Then you choose to deliberately obscure the horizon between permitted and forbidden speech. This can only mean that you intend to exercise your edicts based upon personal likes and dislikes – whether about ideas or persons. Don't like being forced to monitor member's posts for content, style and intent? Welcome to the world of Stazi informants. You are now the oberstfurher. And please don’t give me that … “I’m light with my trigger finger”. You’ve already proved that you are easily manipulated by the pathetic sentimentality of Bronte and the machinations of New Morning. So … find the thought of monitoring it all rather taxing? Need help to make it all work? Just go offline and turn it over to your seconds-in-command, your obergruppenfurhers - New Morning for “obvious” outrages, Bronte Baxter for “emotionally insensitive” offences and Edg for “intuitively recognizable” insults. Oh, and by the way - just so I don’ t leave anyone with any “ambiguity”, which is what I believe will soon happen regularly: 1. I believe that you, Rick Archer, have made an extremely foolish decision to jeopardize the independent speech of FFL members. 2. I believe that Bronte Baxter is too sentimental and cowardly to fight for her own points-of-view and has cut a deal (consciously or unconsciously) with you to create a special FFL privileged status for herself. Such a status would allow her to speak without incurring the confrontation that the rest of us might reasonably incur as a result of firmly stating our point of view. Based upon the gender-driven definitions of Bronte’s recent emails, and New Morning’s insistence that you are not doing your job, which you have explicitly sympathized with, you are subjecting the rest of us to the secret domination motives of these two members. I have noticed that Peter is already afraid to use language stronger than “I agree” or “I disagree” when replying to Bronte. 3. For years Judy Stein has rationally slugged it out with anyone who wants to take her on and has endured being called “slut” and “cunt”. You, Rick Archer, have never intervened, and for you to do so now, generally and without cause, renders Judy’s forbearance worthless and the duplicity in Baxter and New Morn’s domination strategy especially egregious and destructive. 4. I believe that New Morning has conspired to excise the free speech of FFL members. I believe this renders her actions nothing less than traitorous to the spirit of FFL. I consider her efforts not only fundamentally dishonest but a blatant attempt to destroy the free-speech integrity of this forum. For you, Rick Archer, to frame these domination attempts as “just an exercise” is like the Maoist officer declaring the Tiananmen Square massacre as “just the end of a democratic experiment”. HYPERLINK "http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48250/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/spon soredsearch_v9.php?o=US2226&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=AprNI&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50" Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: 9/9/2007 10:17 AM
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
