[Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
608 messages Options
1 ... 6789101112 ... 31
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Terry R.-3
The date and time was 12/1/2008 8:59 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
(Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:

> 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.
>

No slippery slope.  A personal attack is easily detected, and no one
needs an degree in language.  See your examples above, as there isn't
anything slippery there either.

> 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

I think any mature adult would say calling someone a "Bully" is not a
personal attack.  Nor would be "dunderheads", as someone said in another
thread.  But using foul language as LHenry Jr did AND directing it right
at someone IS an attack, plain and clear.

Howard is a bully.  I don't see how anyone could see that as an attack.
Howard is a jerk.  Clearly we know this is a PERSONAL 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 Moz Champion (Dan)
The date and time was 12/1/2008 9:06 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
(Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:

> 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?
>

And you missed the point entirely.  Dan, you have been known to say,
"Sir, you are a(n) <insert name here>", quite similar to your examples.
  Obviously, "Sir" isn't an attack, but what follows is.

"YOU ARE A..." is an attack, and a personal one.
--
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 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
The date and time was 12/1/2008 9:19 AM, and on a whim, Peter Potamus
the Purple Hippo pounded out on the keyboard:

> 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.
>

Please explain how.

--
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?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones, C.E.T. wrote:

> 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.

THe above should be hailing not sleeting.

> If there is bright sun light then its sunny.
>


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.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?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by »Q«
»Q« wrote:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> "Phillip Jones, C.E.T." <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>   But the moderators don't allow anyone to have their email address.
>> For the very reason. If they allowed the public to have their email
>> address they'd be so busy with this and that they wouldn't have time
>> to actually moderate anything.
>
> Phillip, please please stop making things up.  Each of us posts with a
> valid, working e-mail address.
>
They may be valid but some switch around address so much that its
difficult to get through. I know in the past I have attempted to ask a
question and the mail came back.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.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?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by squaredancer
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
Even I typed wrong answer to one item about the marbles hitting head
should have been hailstones. not sleet. :-)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.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?

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

> The date and time was 12/1/2008 8:59 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
> (Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> No slippery slope.  A personal attack is easily detected, and no one
> needs an degree in language.  See your examples above, as there isn't
> anything slippery there either.
>
>> 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
>
> I think any mature adult would say calling someone a "Bully" is not a
> personal attack.  Nor would be "dunderheads", as someone said in another
> thread.  But using foul language as LHenry Jr did AND directing it right
> at someone IS an attack, plain and clear.
>
> Howard is a bully.  I don't see how anyone could see that as an attack.
> Howard is a jerk.  Clearly we know this is a PERSONAL attack.
>
>


Why? In one instance you are calling a person a Jerk and you say it is
an attack, but then if you call him a Bully, it isn't?

Personally, I would rather be a jerk than a bully, or, more
realistically, I would rather meet a jerk than a bully.

As I said when I started this, slippery slope indeed.

In schools, being a bully can get you suspended, being a jerk doesn't.
You don't hear newspaper reports about people being 'jerks' but you
certainly do if they are being bullies.

If you had children would you rather they be a bully or a jerk?

If a person is being a jerk, say on the street, I can simply walk by and
ignore him/her. If the person is being a bully, I don't

Of course, since to you calling someone a bully isn't a personal attack
then may ALL your acquaintances be bullies
_______________________________________________
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 12/1/2008 9:06 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
> (Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> And you missed the point entirely.  Dan, you have been known to say,
> "Sir, you are a(n) <insert name here>", quite similar to your examples.
>  Obviously, "Sir" isn't an attack, but what follows is.
>
> "YOU ARE A..." is an attack, and a personal one.


To you.  To me the use of the term 'Mozilla Bullies' is an attack.

Exactly what I was attempting to describe, the definition of 'personal
attack' is all according to how you 'see' things.

What nonsense
If '*I* say
"You, Sir, are a Bully"    you see it as a personal attack

But if I say

"Nir is one of the Mozilla Bullies"   it isn't?



"you are a..." is a personal attack?

Well I WAS about to say

"you are a gentleman and a scholar" but I guess you see that as a
personal attack, so I won't.

If I say

"You, Sir, are a jerk"  You say it is a personal attack
But if I said (to you)
"You, Sir, belong to a group of Jerks" it isn't?


Regardless of how you say it, it is a personal attack in my book
_______________________________________________
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 12/1/2008 11:05 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
(Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was 12/1/2008 8:59 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
>> (Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> No slippery slope.  A personal attack is easily detected, and no one
>> needs an degree in language.  See your examples above, as there isn't
>> anything slippery there either.
>>
>>> 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
>> I think any mature adult would say calling someone a "Bully" is not a
>> personal attack.  Nor would be "dunderheads", as someone said in another
>> thread.  But using foul language as LHenry Jr did AND directing it right
>> at someone IS an attack, plain and clear.
>>
>> Howard is a bully.  I don't see how anyone could see that as an attack.
>> Howard is a jerk.  Clearly we know this is a PERSONAL attack.
>>
>>
>
>
> Why? In one instance you are calling a person a Jerk and you say it is
> an attack, but then if you call him a Bully, it isn't?
>
> Personally, I would rather be a jerk than a bully, or, more
> realistically, I would rather meet a jerk than a bully.
>
> As I said when I started this, slippery slope indeed.
>
> In schools, being a bully can get you suspended, being a jerk doesn't.
> You don't hear newspaper reports about people being 'jerks' but you
> certainly do if they are being bullies.
>
> If you had children would you rather they be a bully or a jerk?
>
> If a person is being a jerk, say on the street, I can simply walk by and
> ignore him/her. If the person is being a bully, I don't
>
> Of course, since to you calling someone a bully isn't a personal attack
> then may ALL your acquaintances be bullies

Well I guess if you want to take everything out of context, fine.

And thanks for the send off Dan.  Real pleasant.  Typical of one who has
nothing really to say.

--
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 12/1/2008 11:17 AM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
(Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:

>>
>> And you missed the point entirely.  Dan, you have been known to say,
>> "Sir, you are a(n) <insert name here>", quite similar to your examples.
>>  Obviously, "Sir" isn't an attack, but what follows is.
>>
>> "YOU ARE A..." is an attack, and a personal one.
>
>
> To you.  To me the use of the term 'Mozilla Bullies' is an attack.

Please explain clearly if you can.

>
> Exactly what I was attempting to describe, the definition of 'personal
> attack' is all according to how you 'see' things.

No, it's not.

>
> What nonsense
> If '*I* say
> "You, Sir, are a Bully"    you see it as a personal attack

I don't see that as an attack.  And your "You, Sir" preface really makes
it all the more offensive, much more than the comment afterwards,
because you're trying to be respectful in one way and then disrespectful
in another.

Regardless of you describing who you would rather be around in another
post, it has nothing to do with name calling that is offensive.

You're making it sound like it's impossible to field personal attacks.
I'm saying I have enough faith in Chris & the others intelligence to do
so.  Let's just say I'm glad you don't have to make those choices if you
can't tell the difference.

>
> But if I say
>
> "Nir is one of the Mozilla Bullies"   it isn't?
>
>
>
> "you are a..." is a personal attack?

There should have been a space after the a, i.e. "You are a ...",
meaning add your offensive word here, get it?

>
> Well I WAS about to say
>
> "you are a gentleman and a scholar" but I guess you see that as a
> personal attack, so I won't.

I think you're lying, and I'll leave that here.

>
> If I say
>
> "You, Sir, are a jerk"  You say it is a personal attack
> But if I said (to you)
> "You, Sir, belong to a group of Jerks" it isn't?

Again, read your examples.  The answer is there if you care to see 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?

Ed Mullen
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.
>

So, if someone calls you Dickhead it's just a name, right?  No slur,
insult, or attack intended or felt?  Nonsense.  And Mozilla Bullies is
indeed such.  Peter, you may feel better by acting this way but you do
nothing to enhance your credibility or standing in the community.

You may have been slighted in the past, fine.  Get over it and move on.
You'll be happier.  I think.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Why do ballet dancers always dance on their toes? Wouldn't it be easier
to just hire taller dancers?
_______________________________________________
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?

Ed Mullen
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
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 )

n/a

> 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).

Everyone is an asshole at some time or another, myself included.  I'm
happy to ignore the occasional "oops" from anyone.  And I'm happy to
ignore, for the most part, those who repeatedly act that way.  I'm a big
boy, I don't need anyone to be my filter.  I want less regulation in
life, not more.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to
criticism.
_______________________________________________
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 BJ-20
On 01.12.2008 15:04, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  BJ to generate
the following:? :

> 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).
yepp - I mean EXACTLY that - here is the place the "attack" was
launched, HERE is the place to lodge a complaint (especially as ChrisI
has fears that Newbies don't know where else to look)

> 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.
>  

that link is for Spam Posts that the moderators (and list owner) aren't
capable of deleting!
> 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?
>  

see ChrisI's doubts above.
>> 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.
>  

yeah!  "Length" does matter *lol*

>> 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.
>  

don't worry - ChrisI just /loves/  that kind of work - makes his day!
>> 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.
>
>  
I love you :-[ :-[

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 Moz Champion (Dan)
On 01.12.2008 18:06, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Moz Champion
(Dan) to generate the following:? :

> 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>
>  

yeah, well - from /me/  you would get the "don't pride yourself that you
are the first to notice that" return
But as I said - I don't give two monkey's dangles anywhichway!

reg
> 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?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 01.12.2008 16:46, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Terry R. to
generate the following:? :

> 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 - which font group did you use for the "$%&#@Q " part - I can't
seem to get it properly... ;-)

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 Ed Mullen
On 01.12.2008 22:04, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ed Mullen to
generate the following:? :

> 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 )
>>    
>
> n/a
>
>  
>> 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).
>>    
>
> Everyone is an asshole at some time or another, myself included.  I'm
> happy to ignore the occasional "oops" from anyone.  And I'm happy to
> ignore, for the most part, those who repeatedly act that way.  I'm a big
> boy, I don't need anyone to be my filter.  I want less regulation in
> life, not more.
>
>  
hoorah!

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
On 01.12.2008 23:14, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  squaredancer
to generate the following:? :

> On 01.12.2008 22:04, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ed Mullen to
> generate the following:? :
>  
>> 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 )
>>>    
>>>      
>> n/a
>>
>>  
>>    
>>> 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).
>>>    
>>>      
>> Everyone is an asshole at some time or another, myself included.  I'm
>> happy to ignore the occasional "oops" from anyone.  And I'm happy to
>> ignore, for the most part, those who repeatedly act that way.  I'm a big
>> boy, I don't need anyone to be my filter.  I want less regulation in
>> life, not more.
>>
>>  
>>    
> hoorah!
>
> reg
>  

PS

you did read my remarks about assholes, yes???
(try to live *without one* )

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?

»Q«
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:45:24 -0500
"Phillip Jones, C.E.T." <[hidden email]> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
> > In <news:[hidden email]>,
> > "Phillip Jones, C.E.T." <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>   But the moderators don't allow anyone to have their email
> >> address. For the very reason. If they allowed the public to have
> >> their email address they'd be so busy with this and that they
> >> wouldn't have time to actually moderate anything.
> >
> > Phillip, please please stop making things up.  Each of us posts
> > with a valid, working e-mail address.
>
> They may be valid but some switch around address so much that its
> difficult to get through. I know in the past I have attempted to ask
> a question and the mail came back.

We all post with unmunged addresses, and you've  gotten e-mail through
to both Chris and Nir.  If there was some trouble, it wasn't because
of any "switch around address".  If you ever do have some trouble
e-mailing us, post here about with details.

--
»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?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by squaredancer
The date and time was 12/1/2008 2:12 PM, and on a whim, squaredancer
pounded out on the keyboard:

> On 01.12.2008 16:46, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Terry R. to
> generate the following:? :
>> 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 $%&#@Q".
>>  
>
> Terry - which font group did you use for the "$%&#@Q " part - I can't
> seem to get it properly... ;-)
>
> reg

It's one of the "cursive" fonts. ;-)

--
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?

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 9:46 AM, squaredancer's opinion was expressed:

> You mean like:
> Boss to office crew "good morning"
> Office crew "up yours too"

If not an open reply (which would very likely get your butt fired unless
you had a VERY understanding boss), then it's a somewhat common thought.

> call *ME* an asshole, and I'll tell you "yes - I'm useful.... what about
> you"
> call *ME* a "f***** idiot" and I'll tell you not to pride yourself that
> you are the first person to have noticed that.

Interesting and amusing comebacks (I'll have to file these in the
archives of my mind), but in a post they may risk starting a flame war
if the recipient chooses to reply and then you reply again if you get
"hooked".

In a reply, these two examples may qualify as "personal attacks" (BUT
NOT TO ME) depending on the perspective of the one who receives them,
AND WHATEVER RULE MAY BE PROMULGATED HERE.  While they're not obvious
personal attacks to me, or even personal attacks for that matter, they
do straddle that gray area that a complicated rule may attempt to define
and that a particular user may interpret to be defined as personal attacks.

--
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
1 ... 6789101112 ... 31