[Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
608 messages Options
1 ... 567891011 ... 31
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Ron Hunter
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

> jetjock wrote:
>> And why would
>> anyone want to give "support" to someone whom
>> they considered "an idiot" or some other lower form of life, or receive
>> help from someone who considered them such?
>
> hey, thats an insult/attack to the idiots and lower
> form of life of the world.  Your posting should be
> removed and/or you should be banned ;-) :-D
>
> Oh right! this is the general group where such things
> are allowed.
>
Peter,
    Do you really consider yourself an idiot, or some 'lower form of
life'?  If so, what are you complaining about?  If the shoe doesn't fit,
don't try to wear it.


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Irwin Greenwald-4
On 01.12.2008 00:23, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Irwin
Greenwald to generate the following:? :

> On 11/28/2008 5:58 PM, Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>  
>> On 11/28/2008 1:30 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>>>      
>>  NO*
>>
>>    
>>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>>>      
>> No.
>>
>>    
>>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>>>      
>> NO*
>>
>>    
>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>>      
>
> * After reading almost all of the posts in this thread, I am changing my
> vote. Don't ask me why: my response might get me nailed for personal attacks
>
>
>
>
>  
OK - won't ask, but I am glad to think/see that you want to make up your
own mind about what is posted!

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 01.12.2008 09:40, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? :

> squaredancer wrote:
>  
>> On 30.11.2008 16:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Phillip Jones,
>> C.E.T. to generate the following:? :
>>    
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> BJ wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/08 7:02 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's opinion was expressed:
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  That
>>>>>> post should be removed.
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Actually, even though he's kidding (I think . . . there's that "doubt"
>>>>> part creeping in) . . . by your criteria that it only be personal, Ron,
>>>>> your post would be removed, maybe you would be banned, or maybe since
>>>>> there's "doubt" it would be . . . what? . . . elevated in the system?
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>> Can't see any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the
>>>> weather is going to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>> The most accurate way of determining the weather where you are?
>>> Stick your head out the window.
>>>
>>> If it gets wet its raining.
>>> if it gets white its snowing if looks like dandruff but then bounces off
>>> its sleeting.
>>>
>>> if it feels like some one is pelting your head with marble, golf ball.
>>> tennis ball or softballs then its sleeting.
>>>
>>> If there is bright sun light then its sunny.
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>> Phillip - I sure *hope* that you are not implying that Ron has no idea
>> about how to tell the weather?? That would be very dodgy....
>>
>> reg
>>    
>
> Grin.  I live in Texas.  Sometimes we get all those types of weather,
> the same DAY.
>
> I learned a long time ago never to say anything derogatory about
> someone's religion, children, or (especially in Texas) their car.
> People get really defensive in a hurry about those subjects.
>
>
>  
I read someplace, the the motto of the frontier west was:
Ma hoss
ma gun
ma land
ma wimmin
with the importance of each in - more or less - that order.
If anything was said that was considered derogatory, number two came
into use!
S'pose now, "ma hoss" is "ma car" and the rest remains.

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 01.12.2008 09:32, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? :

> G. R. Woodring wrote:
>  
>> Date: 11/30/2008 10:10 AM, Author: Ron Hunter  Wrote:
>>    
>>> BJ wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>>
>>>> On 11/30/08 3:11 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>> IMHO there is no need to
>>>>>>>>> over-police the groups.
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> its geting to that point right now.  Whats next? What else will
>>>>>>>> they remove next?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>> Got a mirror, Peter?  Grin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  
>>>>>> That post should be removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah rats.  Its only for the support groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what could come
>>>>> next should those new rules become the 'rule'.  It casts no
>>>>> aspersions on you.
>>>>>          
>>>> Both Peter and I (well . . . I can't speak for Peter, so I guess it's
>>>> just me) thought that you were saying that he should look in the mirror
>>>> and see the image of . . . one who's post should be removed . . . IOW, a
>>>> "personal attacker".  Hence, we INTERPRETED your remark as an attack on
>>>> him, and not a benign prediction of things to come.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another example of how people see things differently.
>>>>
>>>> Had Peter complained about your post, I expect you would have replied to
>>>> the mods with "Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what
>>>> could come next should those new rules become the 'rule'." or "Can't see
>>>> any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the weather is going
>>>> to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain."
>>>>
>>>> So, is the criteria for a personal attack dependent on how it's
>>>> perceived by the one who complains, or is there some other criteria that
>>>> is independent of the weather? (Yes . . . that was sarcasm, which I
>>>> believe is still allowed here, but crankiness may be on it's way out if
>>>> the rule is based on how a remark is perceived.)
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> I am sure that there are people who would respond to a polite 'Good
>>> Morning' as a perceived personal attack.  I believe there is a rule of
>>> law that requires such things to be something the mythical 'average'
>>> person would take as a personal attack.  Another burden the moderators
>>> would have to shoulder, should such a rule be adopted.  And I wouldn't
>>> want the job.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Regarding "Good morning" as a personal attack is a bit extreme, but what about
>> "Where did you get that information?".  It It could be alternatively interpreted
>> as "Where can I find the full context of that statement?" or "Did you just make
>> that **** up?".
>>
>> What criteria would a moderator use to determine the intended tone?  Should he
>> only evaluate the literal meaning of the phrase, the _perception_ of the the
>> person being addressed, his own perception, or the opinions of the community?
>>
>> Some reasonable definition must be established and it should be reposted
>> frequently enough to always appear in the list of subjects when a user downloads
>> headers.  Failing that, only the most obvious hateful posts could be removed.
>>
>>
>>    
> Well, if the US Supreme Court, with their collected centuries of
> jurisprudence experience, and a couple of hundred years of precedence
> still can't specifically define 'obscene' without reference to 'current
> community standards', what chance do the moderators have of defining a
> personal attack?
> If a comment like' where did you get that idea' can be perceived as a
> personal attack, then I don't believe 'perception' is a good criteria.
> The attack should be obvious, and egregious.  Note the difference
> between; "That's a stupid idea." and "You're a stupid, idiot."  (is a
> 'stupid idiot' worse than a regular idiot?)
>
>
>  
ah yes - grades of insult:

you twit - may be mildly chastised or passed over
you idiot - will be warned (slap fingers)
you stupid idiot - will be severely warned (did not say "you ARE A
stupid idiot")
you ARE a stupid idiot - warned, deleted, banned and outcast.

so, Dan Mozchamp - no more of your favorite "you, Sir, are a ..... whatever"
Even calling someone "sir" may be considered (by that person)
derogative, as being compared to a cop - sorry, police officer - who
like to be called "sir" - see videos on YouTube ref: brutal Police violence.

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

BJ-20
In reply to this post by squaredancer
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 8:46 AM, squaredancer's opinion was expressed:

> IF an attack was obvious AND the attacked person lodged a "complaint
> post" - enough other regulars could come to his/her aid - or the mods
> would have to moderate on a 24hour basis....

Wait a minute . . . wait a minute.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word "post", but that seems to imply that
a complaint would be lodged in a post here somewhere on a NG (unless
you're talking about a "public" complaint for all to see . . . and maybe
that's why you put it in quotes).  But isn't the traditional way to
lodge a complaint done via some sort of "Abuse" address?  I mean on the
Google Group for this NG there IS a "Report this message" link that
leads to a sort of complaint form.

So unless a user went to the Google Group, there's no mechanism other
than posting in public when this NG is read in a client like TB?? Or
send a personal email to the mods?

> anyway - It would be easy enough for "The Rules" to state that there
> shall be a "No Further Comments" to follow a complaint posting -
> something that the mods could use to immediately delete those follow-ups!

Geeezz . . . this proposed new rule is getting longer and more
convoluted all the time.

> Also, it would be possible for "The Rules" to state that "Unwarranted
> complaints will lead to the complainant being warned by the Moderators"

Sort of like "frivolous" or "capricious" law suits that get thrown out
by a judge?  Actually, now that I think of it, how many "Unwarranted
complaints" before that complainant just flat out gets banned?  Or do
the mods just roll their eyes and say "Oh, it's the boy who cried 'wolf'
again"?

And again, see my comment on your previous excerpt.  Is going to take an
attorney to wordsmith this one.

> But, of course, better than all that would be to drop this whole
> stupidity, and for each of us to re-consider his/her own opinion of
> "what is offensive" and of their own self-importance!

Definitely agree with this one.

--
BJ

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete all the NOSPAMs from the email address after clicking Reply.


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

BJ-20
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 8:54 AM, G. R. Woodring's opinion was expressed:

> Regarding "Good morning" as a personal attack is a bit extreme

Yes, that's a bit over the top.  A person like that is probably ready to
be fitted for a straight jacket.

> but what  about "Where did you get that information?".  It It could be
> alternatively interpreted as "Where can I find the full context of that
> statement?" or "Did you just make that **** up?".

Interestingly, I've frequently found that asking a person "Where did you
get that information?" results in exposing a charlatan because they said
something so outrageous that it doesn't have a source (not all the time,
but very frequent).  A lot of people, especially charlatans but even
credible people, will get offended if you ask that question and perceive
it to be an attack on their honesty.  I guess the thinking is "How dare
you question my integrity!"

But whenever I ask that question, I honestly want to know the source,
because I'm usually so intrigued with the claim that I'd like to read
more about it.  I get disappointed when I find out that the source
doesn't exist.  The temptation is to say "You just made that up, didn't
you?"  But I've restrained myself because that kind of remark usually
starts a ridiculous flame war.

> What criteria would a moderator use to determine the intended tone?
> Should he only evaluate the literal meaning of the phrase, the
> _perception_ of the the person being addressed, his own perception, or
> the opinions of the community?

The Internet is notoriously without tone . . . witness all the emoticons
and those repetitive "LOL's".   So the mods really can't judge tone,
unless it's by context, and even that is iffy.

Literal meanings open things up for the "But I didn't mean it that way"
excuse.  (The retort to that excuse might be "Then you should have used
some emoticons or Internet lingo shorthand to clarify your tone."
I myself prefer plain English there . . . I preface certain remarks
with "I don't mean to be abusive or abrasive in my tone, but . . .")

Perceptions by the aggrieved are all over the map and may indicate
cultural, emotional, religious, situational or other influences that can
exaggerate the actual remark that prompted the complaint.

And unless there's a consensus by the community, those opinions may
likewise be all over the map.  And a consensus by the community doesn't
necessarily make the opinion objective, it only means that the majority
said it.  Majorities have been wrong plenty of times.

> Some reasonable definition must be established

That's the crux of the issue . . . the Gordian Knot as it were, because
I think that other than, as you put it, "the most obvious hateful
posts", a precise and reasonable definition would be impossible, short
of a zillion pages of specific examples and plenty of legalese.  I
certainly don't think it can be done in just a few short sentences . . .
or at least NOT one that covers all circumstances other than "the most
obvious hateful posts".

> and it should be reposted frequently enough to always appear in the list of subjects when a user
> downloads headers.  Failing that, only the most obvious hateful posts could be removed.

Then perhaps the simple rule would be "NO obvious hateful posts" . . .
period!

Of course, there would always be those that would then question what
"hateful" means.  And then you get into the circular arguments about
perceptions, intent, community opinions, "average" person, "reasonable"
person, blah, blah, blah . . .

Well . . . I think it was squaredancer that said it in some post here .
. . let's scrap the whole idea.

Actually, what started this nonsense?  Did somebody make an "obvious
hateful post" that WASN'T removed?

--
BJ

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete all the NOSPAMs from the email address after clicking Reply.





_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
The date and time was 11/28/2008 1:30 PM, and on a whim, Chris Ilias
pounded out on the keyboard:

> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )

Yes

>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )

No

>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )

Yes

>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).

An attack is an attack, regardless of whether it's on topic. Leaving on
topic attacks would allow someone to keep their posts listed and still
accomplish what they want.

>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.


--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
The date and time was 11/29/2008 1:38 PM, and on a whim, Phillip Jones,
C.E.T. pounded out on the keyboard:

>
> I've quit posting very much in other groups such a s SeaMonkey, FireFox,
> and Thunderbird. Because I'm being constantly put down for giving
> information That Mac users would like to hear, or be interested in. I
> always get some smart comment about why are you posting that since we
> use a PC. The do make Mozilla products, for other OS other than windows.
>   Mac, Unix, Linux to name just three.
>

Phillip, I have never seen anyone "put you down" for offering Mac info.

Very specifically, most of the time you state that Macs are
better/safer/easier/etc than PC's, and you proceed to say that PC's
aren't as useful.  Your opinions are based on PC's operations of 20
years ago.  Users who know PC's see your inaccuracies and call them out
as being untrue.  Nothing else.


--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Moz Champion (Dan)
The date and time was 11/29/2008 1:36 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
(Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:

> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> _Background_
>>
>>
>>
>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
>
> Abstain
>
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> Abstain
>
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Abstain
>
>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>
>>
>
> This is a very slippery slope indeed. I've been there, done that.
>
> What constitutes a 'personal attack' in the first place?
>
> For example
>
> You, Sir, are an idiot.

Attack

> Only an idiot would think that way.

Insinuating, so it's an attack

> Is there a village missing it's idiot?

Same as above

> That's plain idiotic.

Not directed at the poster, but their point of view. Not an attack.  BUT
this type of comment could very well start a personal attack.

> Idjet.
>
>
> Do any of the above constitute 'a personal attack'?
>
> Now, I realize those are quite mild, as far as some attacks go anyway,
> but you get the general idea.
>
> How about
>
> Where the EFFing did you get that from?  (I don't use obscene language,
> you get the idea too)
> Or is that more obscene than an 'attack'?

Not a personal attack.  Just someone using foul language that isn't
needed in the conversation.


>
> On that note, at this juncture I would like to say that I interpret the
> term 'Mozilla Bullies' as used here and in other support groups by a few
> posters, as an 'attack'.
> So what would be done in that case? Or is that even an 'attack'?

Mozilla Bullies is a name for the moderators.  That's not an attack.
Saying, The Mozilla Bullies are jerks is an attack.


--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
The date and time was 11/29/2008 6:13 AM, and on a whim, Jay Garcia
pounded out on the keyboard:

> Final comment based on all the replies:
>
> My feeling NOW is to abandon the thought of removing personal attacks,
> the reason being that there are just too many definitions as to the
> severity and like Dan said, just what IS a personal attack.
>
> My suggestion:
>
> In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an
> idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack
> escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the
> original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a
> mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to
> over-police the groups.
>
>
>

It doesn't take ANY interpretation when someone says, "You're a $%&#@Q".

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by BJ-21
The date and time was 11/30/2008 4:57 AM, and on a whim, BJ pounded out
on the keyboard:

> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/30/08 3:17 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>
>> To me, the issue is simple; avoid foul language, and don't attack a
>> PERSON, only his idea.
>
> Yes, the foul language part is pretty simple, but the "personal attack"
> part eludes a precise definition in some cases.  Yes, there are personal
> attacks that can be blatantly over the line, and for those there should
> be some moderator intervention.
>
> But there are personal attacks that are not as clear (the ones for which
> there is no precise definition), but perceived as such by the person
> receiving them.  Or perhaps disguised in an obscure language, but still
> with the intent to be a personal attack, and perhaps that intent would
> be expressed in English . . . just the attack itself would be disguised.
>

The poster who started this whole thing made an obvious attack with foul
language. It doesn't take an English major to decipher it.  Some people
responding sound like the moderators won't be able to tell an attack
from a non-attack.  I would see that only one of the three might have
that problem, and that is because of a language barrier.

I think the "slippery slope" scenario is more vague than the rule trying
to be implemented.  Sure, it won't be 100% effective, but at least
posters who are afraid to confront someone face to face but so bold to
attack people online will be reduced.


--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by LEHenryJr-2
The date and time was 11/29/2008 3:56 PM, and on a whim, LEHenryJr
pounded out on the keyboard:


> Chris,
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes  )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes)
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes  )
>
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
> The fact is, no one reads the Newsgroup posting rules.
>
> Personal attacks should not be allowed, as it disrupts the purpose of
> the room; and that's to provide support to others.
>
> If someone is out of line, warn them and reference the rule infraction(s).
>
> If a post is offensive and mixed with valid information, it should still
> be removed. Someone else will be more courteous with their response. If
> the issue is just between two persons, the warning should go to each
> person and a request to stop these types of discussions publicly.
>
> Good evening,
> LHenry
>
>
>

Interesting, coming from the foul mouth attacker who started this...

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> jetjock wrote:
>>> And why would anyone want to give "support" to someone whom
>>> they considered "an idiot" or some other lower form of life, or
>>> receive help from someone who considered them such?
>>
>> hey, thats an insult/attack to the idiots and lower form of life of
>> the world.  Your posting should be removed and/or you should be banned
>> ;-) :-D
>>
>> Oh right! this is the general group where such things are allowed.
>>
> Peter,
>    Do you really consider yourself an idiot, or some 'lower form of
> life'?  If so, what are you complaining about?  If the shoe doesn't fit,
> don't try to wear it.
>
>

another insulting attack on me.  Are you doing this
because its permitted within the general group?

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Moz Champion (Dan)
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was 11/29/2008 1:36 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
> (Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> _Background_
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>>
>>
>> Abstain
>>
>>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>>
>> Abstain
>>
>>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>>
>> Abstain
>>
>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is a very slippery slope indeed. I've been there, done that.
>>
>> What constitutes a 'personal attack' in the first place?
>>
>> For example
>>
>> You, Sir, are an idiot.
>
> Attack
>
>> Only an idiot would think that way.
>
> Insinuating, so it's an attack
>
>> Is there a village missing it's idiot?
>
> Same as above
>
>> That's plain idiotic.
>
> Not directed at the poster, but their point of view. Not an attack.  BUT
> this type of comment could very well start a personal attack.
>
>> Idjet.
>>
>>
>> Do any of the above constitute 'a personal attack'?
>>
>> Now, I realize those are quite mild, as far as some attacks go anyway,
>> but you get the general idea.
>>
>> How about
>>
>> Where the EFFing did you get that from?  (I don't use obscene
>> language, you get the idea too)
>> Or is that more obscene than an 'attack'?
>
> Not a personal attack.  Just someone using foul language that isn't
> needed in the conversation.
>
>
>>
>> On that note, at this juncture I would like to say that I interpret
>> the term 'Mozilla Bullies' as used here and in other support groups by
>> a few posters, as an 'attack'.
>> So what would be done in that case? Or is that even an 'attack'?
>
> Mozilla Bullies is a name for the moderators.  That's not an attack.
> Saying, The Mozilla Bullies are jerks is an attack.
>
>


Just goes to show you, that 'personal attack' means different things to
different people, the 'slippery slope' I mentioned.

imho, the term 'Mozilla Bullies' as used in this group and others by a
select few, is an attack. You don't think so, obviously
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
The date and time was 12/1/2008 8:52 AM, and on a whim, Peter Potamus
the Purple Hippo pounded out on the keyboard:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> jetjock wrote:
>>>> And why would anyone want to give "support" to someone whom
>>>> they considered "an idiot" or some other lower form of life, or
>>>> receive help from someone who considered them such?
>>> hey, thats an insult/attack to the idiots and lower form of life of
>>> the world.  Your posting should be removed and/or you should be banned
>>> ;-) :-D
>>>
>>> Oh right! this is the general group where such things are allowed.
>>>
>> Peter,
>>    Do you really consider yourself an idiot, or some 'lower form of
>> life'?  If so, what are you complaining about?  If the shoe doesn't fit,
>> don't try to wear it.
>>
>>
>
> another insulting attack on me.  Are you doing this
> because its permitted within the general group?
>

Grant,

How do you come to the conclusion that Ron attacked you?  Actually he
said what I was thinking, that you're putting yourself into the
position.  Others aren't putting you there.  Ron clearly said, "If the
shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it."

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Moz Champion (Dan)
In reply to this post by squaredancer
squaredancer wrote:

> On 01.12.2008 09:32, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
> generate the following:? :
>> G. R. Woodring wrote:
>>  
>>> Date: 11/30/2008 10:10 AM, Author: Ron Hunter  Wrote:
>>>    
>>>> BJ wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing
>>>>> personal
>>>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/30/08 3:11 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>> IMHO there is no need to
>>>>>>>>>> over-police the groups.
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>> its geting to that point right now.  Whats next? What else will
>>>>>>>>> they remove next?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> Got a mirror, Peter?  Grin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  
>>>>>>> That post should be removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah rats.  Its only for the support groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>> Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what could come
>>>>>> next should those new rules become the 'rule'.  It casts no
>>>>>> aspersions on you.
>>>>>>          
>>>>> Both Peter and I (well . . . I can't speak for Peter, so I guess it's
>>>>> just me) thought that you were saying that he should look in the
>>>>> mirror
>>>>> and see the image of . . . one who's post should be removed . . .
>>>>> IOW, a
>>>>> "personal attacker".  Hence, we INTERPRETED your remark as an
>>>>> attack on
>>>>> him, and not a benign prediction of things to come.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet another example of how people see things differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Had Peter complained about your post, I expect you would have
>>>>> replied to
>>>>> the mods with "Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what
>>>>> could come next should those new rules become the 'rule'." or
>>>>> "Can't see
>>>>> any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the weather is
>>>>> going
>>>>> to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain."
>>>>>
>>>>> So, is the criteria for a personal attack dependent on how it's
>>>>> perceived by the one who complains, or is there some other criteria
>>>>> that
>>>>> is independent of the weather? (Yes . . . that was sarcasm, which I
>>>>> believe is still allowed here, but crankiness may be on it's way
>>>>> out if
>>>>> the rule is based on how a remark is perceived.)
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>> I am sure that there are people who would respond to a polite 'Good
>>>> Morning' as a perceived personal attack.  I believe there is a rule
>>>> of law that requires such things to be something the mythical
>>>> 'average' person would take as a personal attack.  Another burden
>>>> the moderators would have to shoulder, should such a rule be
>>>> adopted.  And I wouldn't want the job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>> Regarding "Good morning" as a personal attack is a bit extreme, but
>>> what about "Where did you get that information?".  It It could be
>>> alternatively interpreted as "Where can I find the full context of
>>> that statement?" or "Did you just make that **** up?".
>>>
>>> What criteria would a moderator use to determine the intended tone?  
>>> Should he only evaluate the literal meaning of the phrase, the
>>> _perception_ of the the person being addressed, his own perception,
>>> or the opinions of the community?
>>>
>>> Some reasonable definition must be established and it should be
>>> reposted frequently enough to always appear in the list of subjects
>>> when a user downloads headers.  Failing that, only the most obvious
>>> hateful posts could be removed.
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>> Well, if the US Supreme Court, with their collected centuries of
>> jurisprudence experience, and a couple of hundred years of precedence
>> still can't specifically define 'obscene' without reference to
>> 'current community standards', what chance do the moderators have of
>> defining a personal attack?
>> If a comment like' where did you get that idea' can be perceived as a
>> personal attack, then I don't believe 'perception' is a good criteria.
>> The attack should be obvious, and egregious.  Note the difference
>> between; "That's a stupid idea." and "You're a stupid, idiot."  (is a
>> 'stupid idiot' worse than a regular idiot?)
>>
>>
>>  
> ah yes - grades of insult:
>
> you twit - may be mildly chastised or passed over
> you idiot - will be warned (slap fingers)
> you stupid idiot - will be severely warned (did not say "you ARE A
> stupid idiot")
> you ARE a stupid idiot - warned, deleted, banned and outcast.
>
> so, Dan Mozchamp - no more of your favorite "you, Sir, are a .....
> whatever"
> Even calling someone "sir" may be considered (by that person)
> derogative, as being compared to a cop - sorry, police officer - who
> like to be called "sir" - see videos on YouTube ref: brutal Police
> violence.
>
> reg


Another fine example of people disagreeing on what constitutes a
'personal attack' in the first place.

I could no more see calling someone 'Sir' as an attack than calling my
Mother 'Mom'.  Use of 'Sir' may be sarcastic, but not an attack.
As in
'Don't call me Sir, I work for a living'
OR
'Don't call me Sir, my parents were married'

which are both old non-com jokes from the military

how about

You, Sir, are a twit  <grin>

sarcastic and mildly chastising?

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by Moz Champion (Dan)
Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
> Terry R. wrote:

>> Mozilla Bullies is a name for the moderators.  That's not an attack.
>> Saying, The Mozilla Bullies are jerks is an attack.
>
> Just goes to show you, that 'personal attack' means different things to
> different people, the 'slippery slope' I mentioned.
>
> imho, the term 'Mozilla Bullies' as used in this group and others by a
> select few, is an attack. You don't think so, obviously

no, its a name.  Mozilla Bullies and the Spam Moose are
the names of a group of people.  Its not an attack.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

»Q«
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:44:07 -0800
"Terry R." <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mozilla Bullies is a name for the moderators.  That's not an attack.

I'd say calling people derogatory names does constitute an attack.
I suspect you don't think of "Bully" as derogatory in this context
only because he's done it so very many times.

That said, most of that name-calling is done in m.general rather than
in the support groups, which is good.

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                      ASCII Ribbon Campaign      \ /
                                       against html e-mail        X
                                     <http://asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was 12/1/2008 8:52 AM, and on a whim, Peter Potamus
> the Purple Hippo pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>> jetjock wrote:
>>>>> And why would anyone want to give "support" to someone whom
>>>>> they considered "an idiot" or some other lower form of life, or
>>>>> receive help from someone who considered them such?
>>>> hey, thats an insult/attack to the idiots and lower form of life of
>>>> the world.  Your posting should be removed and/or you should be
>>>> banned ;-) :-D
>>>>
>>>> Oh right! this is the general group where such things are allowed.
>>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>    Do you really consider yourself an idiot, or some 'lower form of
>>> life'?  If so, what are you complaining about?  If the shoe doesn't
>>> fit, don't try to wear it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> another insulting attack on me.  Are you doing this because its
>> permitted within the general group?
>>
>
> Grant,
>
> How do you come to the conclusion that Ron attacked you?  Actually he
> said what I was thinking, that you're putting yourself into the
> position.  Others aren't putting you there.  Ron clearly said, "If the
> shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it."
>

I consider it as an attack.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Moz Champion (Dan)
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>
>>> Mozilla Bullies is a name for the moderators.  That's not an attack.
>>> Saying, The Mozilla Bullies are jerks is an attack.
>>
>> Just goes to show you, that 'personal attack' means different things
>> to different people, the 'slippery slope' I mentioned.
>>
>> imho, the term 'Mozilla Bullies' as used in this group and others by a
>> select few, is an attack. You don't think so, obviously
>
> no, its a name.  Mozilla Bullies and the Spam Moose are the names of a
> group of people.  Its not an attack.
>



I consider it an attack.


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1 ... 567891011 ... 31