Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2003, at 10:01:33
In reply to Re: civil alternatives » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on October 23, 2003, at 8:24:18
> Let us consider an hypothetical posting reading, in its entirety, "I am uncomfortable communicating with X, because I received a private email from X which contained profanity and a threat against my wellbeing."
>
> Is that uncivil? If it is, could you please suggest something that you would accept?My concern would be that the above might lead X to feel accused. What would be the point of bringing it up?
> > > Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
> >
> > Would it be with the permission of the author of the email?
>
> It might arise that there was a debate that was of the form "Did not" "Did so", and the email itself might be the only evidence available.So the goal would be to resolve the debate?
1. What would be the point? How would that be beneficial?
2. Would it need to happen here?If we can clarify what the point of a post would be, then I think it would be easier to discuss possible alternatives...
> > > No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
> >
> > If no one's mentioned by name, then lots of people may feel accused...
>
> I think that's a straw man argument, Dr. Bob. The statements that you focussed on were contextually self-limiting.If the context limits it to someone in particular, wouldn't it be easy for that poster to feel accused?
> Anyway, so is the issue the use of words like "lying"? Just that plain and simple?
That's at least a part of it, but I'd hardly call this plain and simple!
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:266922
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/272251.html