Sure, call me names if you don't like what I say. If those who believe that free
speech means we must listen to endless adolescent discussion, then what is left?
People on this list have tried ignoring him, reasoning with him, admonishing him, and
ridiculing him. Any suggestions besides letting valuable discussion about teaching
be driven from the list?
All communities have their ways of enforcing norms. Meetings have chairs; journals
have editors; in less formal situations one can raise and eyebrow, roll one's eyes,
or simply walk away. Discussion lists don't have these features. Another list I
belonged to self-destructed because it was unable to deal with -- sound familiar?--
antisemitism.
don
Donald McBurney
University of Pittsburgh
Rick Adams wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
> > Now I propose that anyone who feels it wise to respond to him should put
> > "Re: Michael Sylvester's latest idiotic posting" in the Subject line.
> > That way we can all save much time and effort.
>
> Ok. But since some of us view him differently, would it be ok to put "Re:
> Donald McBurney's latest idiotic posting" in the Subject line of messages
> responding to you as well?
>
> Or is the degradation limited only to those you personally don't like?
>
> It's a simple matter to avoid Michael's (or anyone else's) posts--don't
> read them! No one compells other members of the list to read any
> thread--if it is offensive, then just skip those messages.
>
> In the time it would take to write the above line of yours, you could
> press the "delete" key 45 times--more than enough to delete nearly any
> thread you, personally, find offensive.
>
> What I can't understand is the logic displayed by those who insist that
> because THEY don't care for a series of posts, those posts shouldn't
> exist. If no one wanted to join those threads, Michael (or anyone else
> targeted by the censors) would simply be posting for himself. But
> apparently enough people are interested in the discussions to perpetuate
> them--and as a result those who find them offensive (instead of simply
> ignoring them and allowing others the freedom to participate in threads of
> interest that they have the right to expect on a list of this nature),
> jump into the threads themselves and perpetuate them with arguments that
> they shouldn't exist. If a person feels a thread shouldn't exist, it's
> rather absurd for that person to perpetuate it by participating in it
> personally.
>
> Rick
