Thanks to Trudy for posting these rules. I can't speak for others on
the list, but in my case, it isn't that I haven't seen these rules, but
that I still can't see how Laurie has breached them.
There's only one paragraph that would seem to apply to Laurie's
situation:
> -While all members have a dedicated aim of working for reconciliation
> and justice for Aboriginal Australians, there are
> bound to be many different viewpoints on how to attain these goals.
> Members are encouraged to discuss and debate
> vigorously but in language that respects the viewpoint and humanity of
> others.
Or, possibly, this comes into play:
> -Any personal disagreements which go outside the boundaries outlined
> above, should be kept private. If any member is
> found to be harassing others on the list - even privately - that member
> may be asked to leave the list.
>
For me, the problem is that there are in fact no boundaries
explicitly stated. What is "language that respects the viewpoint
and humanity of others"? That is so broad as to require
interpretation, so the question is, what are the guidelines for
interpretation.
Specifically, in this case, is it or is it not ok on this list to call
someone racist? Is it or is it not ok to call someone's ideas racist?
Even more specifically: I have very little or no respect for Karen's
viewpoint as she has presented it in her posting to this list. Am I
not permitted to express my view of her viewpoint?
It's a can of worms. And the very vagueness of the rule as it is
constructed at present has, at least on me, a chilling effect. How
am I to know when I've crossed a line when the line is not clearly
drawn?
So, to my mind, the question is not whether we have " . . . an open
forum where there are no standards of discourse
> or do you support a minimum standard of no personal attacks?"
but rather, whether we have clearly defined standards of discourse,
and if so, what are those standards, who defines them and who
enforces them.
> If there are standards, do you think they should apply to all members or
> only those we don't like?
I can't imagine that any person on this list would agree that
standards should only apply to "those we don't like"! C'mon,
Trudy, we may not be as "adult" as you'd like, but I think most of
us behave like reasonable people!
Sandy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sanders
Wormhole Books
27A Main Street
Upwey VIC 3158
ph/fax 61 (03) 9754 5440
www.wormhole.com.au
WORMHOLE BOOKS science/fiction and beyond . . . .
www.wormhole.com.au
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
