Posted by Larry Hoover on September 26, 2004, at 11:58:05
In reply to Lou's reply to Mair » mair, posted by Lou Pilder on September 26, 2004, at 11:25:30
> Mair,
> I do like your contribution that says that some rule could be made to have a quota for posts, but would not that rule have to be well-defined and applied equally? If there was such a rule, could you find this rule on any other forum? If so, could you point this forum out to me that has such a rule?
> LouI'm going to jump in here, Lou, because this is the crux of my own argument. In the existing civility code, it is not permitted to "harass or pressure others".
The problem is, what is the functional definition of that? I wholly support seeing a well-defined expression of the boundaries of such a condition. I was blocked for asking for references too much. The other party was replying to me, and alluding to the existence of references, of evidence, at each turn. However, I was blocked for asking to see that evidence, just as frequently as I was told that it was in existence. I don't know what bob believes is the threshold, but apparently, I exceeded it. In my view, however, the other party was the one being uncivil. That other poster expressed his own opinion that he was not in accord with the civility guidelines. I was blocked for agreeing with him.
I have already expressed my view as to where I think such a clearly defined limit to the number of requests should lie.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394934.htmlI was told that a request not to post to me is automatically cancelled the moment I post to that party. I think the same standard should apply here. If I request information or clarification, and that party does not reply, it is over. If they do reply, though, their reply cancels my request. It is null and void. That permits me to request again, if I am still unsatisfied with the response. However, in the absence of a topical reply, I am constrained against renewing my request, under penalties appropriate to being uncivil.
I can well understand that such a guideline might lead you to feel that you might bear a particular burden in adhering to it. However, I have felt that very sting. My own efforts at civility have gone unrecognized, in my perhaps not so humble opinion. I have had to drastically modify my writing style, eliminating passive voice, for example.
However, none of us exist in a vacuum. Many rules are created to minimize harm, rather than to optimize benefits. In minimizing harm, some will be more harmed than others, but perhaps none are unscathed. I think this is such a case.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:395233
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395277.html