Posted by Lou PIlder on February 14, 2007, at 10:28:22
In reply to Re: Please use the 'Notify the Administrators' but » Dinah, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 14, 2007, at 8:44:58
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the reply. I don't care about the post I gave a link to per se, I was just wondering where the line fell and used it as an example. I didn't know it was okay to be uncivil toward significant others. I was under the impression we had to remain civil at all times, and to all people - otherwise the boundaries become less clear. What if those significant others are posters on this board? I know its an unlikely situation, but it could still happen.
>
> I have to say I'm abit disappointed with this new information. I really was under the impression that we were supposed to be civil to all people (including significant others) at all times. Know wonder people get confused! I'm not saying we're not allowed to express our feelings about them, but to say, for example 'I wish my mother wouldn't intrude into my life' instead of 'eff off'.
>
> I really wish we could change the rules to include civility toward significant others/employers etc. I feel it creates a bad atmosphere on the boards, and also, makes us look rather two-faced.
>
> Kind regards
>
> MeriFriends,
It is written here,[...wondering where the line fell..what if those..posted on this board..?...].
I brought this up in what IMO was a parallel situation to Dr. Hsiung and he defined what I think could be the rationale for this situation.
There was a post where a group was the recipiant of a statement that IMO put them down. Dr. Hsiung wrote that I had a rightfull objection to the statement being allowed.
Dr. Hsiung then posted a link to a table of contents to the book (or writings) of the author of the statement that was cited that was not acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum under leading one, or a group of people, to feel put down. The table of contents are still there and one can click in the offered link that is in the text tht goes to the table of contents of the book where the statement came from and see the uncivil statement. And there are members of the group in the statement on the forum.
This leads me to believe that {if something else is requirerd in order to see the uncivil statement,} >that is outside being directly in the text<, that the uncivil statement is allowed to remain unsanctioned. In the case here in question, the person in question is or is not seen as directly connected to the text which IMO deceides this question.
So in a sense, it could be uncivil to offer a link, let's say, that has antisemitic content because the link is {directly to the text} but, let's say, one clicks on a link that does not have uncivil content and then there is another link within the content of that link with antisemitic content, then those statements will not be notated as being uncivil. And there are other cases here concerning this policy.
I do not agree with Dr. Hsiung in his policy concerning this, but nevertheless, it is IMO the policy here. What could happen IMO under this policy is that one could have a venue here to post a link to, let's say, a supremist web site and in what comes up there is nothing uncivil. But then there could be a link to supremist doctrine in what comes up from clicking on the offered link that could have the potential IMO to put down Jews and others that are not in the group of people that make up those in the supremist' group of people. If one would like to see the links to any of the ones here of that policy, they could email me if they like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:732656
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/732702.html