[Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
608 messages Options
1 ... 78910111213 ... 31
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

jetjock
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

> jetjock wrote:
>
>> If someone posts on topic, but their post contains a personal attack,
>> send it back to them and tell them to remove the attack and repost if
>> they want to help.
>
>
> by what you're saying is every post should be sent to a moderator
> before being posted
>
I was under the impression that they already were.  Don't all posts get
reviewed before they are posted?

--

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
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 Moz Champion (Dan)
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 11:48 AM, Moz Champion (Dan)'s opinion was expressed:

> This is a perfect example of the 'slippery slope' of controlling such.

I agree, but some folks here insist that this is a black or white issue.
  And, indeed it is when it comes to "obvious hateful posts" as G.D
Woodring said, but when it comes to personal attacks that are less clear
to some (many examples in this thread), then that is where the "slippery
slope" comes in.

And for my discussion of "obvious hateful posts", see
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/browse_frm/thread/007c8d8ee6ce92a7# 

and scroll almost to the bottom of the post.

--
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 squaredancer
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 8:55 AM, squaredancer's opinion was expressed:


> I think "gold" is an accepted colour - and note the way I spell
> "colour"... the *CORRECT* way, so please stop using americanisms here,
> in an international forum - I might feel offended :-P   and complain to
> the mods!

Still rather crude here in the colonies . . . have never learned how to
spell yououour way.

Here's a good colonial idea though.  Let's get somebody dressed like
Indians to throw this whole issue into Boston Harbor with all that tea
at the bottom.

(BTW, I do like the Brit speech impediment . . . whooppps, sorry Brits,
I mean accent.  Winston Churchill said it best:  Two common cultures,
separated by a different language.)

--
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?

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

> 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.
>


?? How is that unpleasant? You keep saying calling peoples bullies is
not an attack, so whom am I insulting? Nobody! (according to you)

If calling the moderators here 'bullies' is okay and fine, then what is
wrong with calling your acquantances 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?

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

On 11/30/08 1:08 PM, jetjock's opinion was expressed:


>> 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.

> Jay, I'm afraid that I must disagree with you on this one.  What is the
> purpose of allowing _*any*_ derogatory comments
> in a group?

The problem is that "derogatory comments" may not be seen as such by
some (just read through this thread for plenty of examples of that).
With the possible exception of G.R. Woodring's "obvious hateful posts",
and even THEY may not be as clear as some think (see my discussion on
that topic at
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/browse_frm/thread/007c8d8ee6ce92a7# 


and scroll down toward the end), "derogatory comments" is hard to define
precisely.  What is a derogatory comment to some is a pleasantry to others.

And, since this NG is "international" (something that I think
squaredancer mentioned in jest, but is nevertheless true if it's on the
Internet . . . Google Groups), then cultures and language barriers come
into play also.  What is accepted in one culture (e.g. female genitalia
mutilation in Somalia) is looked on as a barbaric abomination in another
(here in the US and Europe, for example).  The thumbs up sign is
regarded as obscene in some Arab cultures, much like using the middle
finger here in the US.  I can't think of any "derogatory comments"
examples right now, but I'm sure there are some.  (Perhaps some
"international" poster will chime in).

Bottom line, Jay's suggestion avoids the whole tortuous and probably
futile exercise, yet accomplishes the same result.  And isn't that what
we all want?, without trying to figure out a precise definition of
"derogatory comments" or enumerating all cultural examples (an
impossible task anyway).

> Has our society degraded to such a point that we can't
> disagree with someone in a civil manner without
> resorting to name calling or other personal attacks?

Again, since this is an "international" place, notions of "our society"
are obsolete.  Things are "global" now, and what is a mechanism for
disagreeing in a "civil manner" to one culture is not the same in
another.  In some culture, challenging someone to a duel to the death is
an acceptable means of "disagreeing in a civil manner" (Thank goodness
that was outlawed here in the US after Aaron Burr shot and killed
Alexander Hamilton in a duel, the "gentleman's" way of settling things
back then.  While I don't think name calling or personal attacks are the
way to make a point or dispute something, it's a heck of a lot better
than a duel to the death.)

> 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?

Most don't but some, in the exuberance of having found a solution, do.

--
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 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 1:19 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's opinion was expressed:

> 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.
>

There's been a lot of sarcasm on this, but it shows how stuff can be
perceived by someone who is serious.

--
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 squaredancer
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 9:08 AM, squaredancer's opinion was expressed:

> On 29.11.2008 22:09, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Justin Wood
> (Callek) to generate the following:? :
>> BJ wrote:
>>  
>>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>
>>> On 11/29/08 10:26 AM, Tarkus's opinion was expressed:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> I find this poll offensive, and think it should be removed.
>>>>      
>>> Nice backhanded way to show that personal attacks as defined by the
>>> perception of the attacked is VERY ARBITRARY and can actually be used as
>>> a tool for "getting back" at someone you don't like.  If ever there were
>>> a flimsy standard, this is one.  It can be abused itself.
>>>
>>> And then the moderators would find themselves in the middle of a dispute
>>> over whether a "perceived" personal attack complaint itself was a
>>> personal attack.  Talk about things spiraling out of control.
>>>
>>> I think Jay's suggestion earlier about using the Off Topic policy to
>>> avoid the whole situation here and still eliminate personal attacks
>>> indirectly is the way to go.
>>>
>>> I would think the moderators would embrace this as a method to avoid
>>> interminable disputes and still achieve the goal of eliminating personal
>>> attacks.
>>>    
>>
>> [IANAL] Can be solved with a:
>>
>> "If you feel like there was a personal attack against you, report it
>> and the moderators will look into it"
>>  
>
> which is what I've been saying all along!
>
>> and "What is a personal attack is chosen by the moderating team, and
>> all decisions are chosen case-by-case and is final" etc.
>>  
>
> but ONLY after a complaint (see above) has been submitted!
>
> reg
>

No change there about reporting, but I suspect this discussion may
highlight the mechanism and have people that otherwise would not report,
REPORT.

--
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 PhillipJones
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 8:51 AM, Phillip Jones, C.E.T.'s opinion was expressed:

> Being that a large rotund individual I might consider that a compliment.

I assume "large rotund individual" is the politically correct way of
using the politically incorrect word "fat".  George Orwell would be amused.

--
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 Moz Champion (Dan)
The date and time was 12/1/2008 4:12 PM, and on a whim, Moz Champion
(Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:

>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> ?? How is that unpleasant? You keep saying calling peoples bullies is
> not an attack, so whom am I insulting? Nobody! (according to you)

Let's see, we're trying to have a mature discussion and you decide to go
into your defensive sarcastic mode.

>
> If calling the moderators here 'bullies' is okay and fine, then what is
> wrong with calling your acquantances bullies?
>

You know what you said.  It is typical Dan at a loss for words.  I'm
surprised you didn't preface it with, "You sir"...

--
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 jetjock
jetjock wrote:

> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
>> jetjock wrote:
>>
>>> If someone posts on topic, but their post contains a personal attack,
>>> send it back to them and tell them to remove the attack and repost if
>>> they want to help.
>>
>>
>> by what you're saying is every post should be sent to a moderator
>> before being posted
>>
> I was under the impression that they already were.  Don't all posts get
> reviewed before they are posted?
>

good gawd no!!!!  But after this, you never know.

--
*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?

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 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.
>

he's putting me into the idiot and lower life class

--
*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?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by BJ-20
BJ wrote:

> Interesting and amusing comebacks (I'll have to file these in the
> archives of my mind)

if you do, then they might get lost! ;-) :-) :-D

Better to drag the posting to your insulting folder so
you'll have it always

--
*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?

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

> "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?

OK, then Dan, you belong to a group of Jerks.  Have I
attacked you or not.  By your thinking, no.

--
*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?

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

> 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

Great!  Then by your thinking, I'll start calling them
the Mozilla Jerks, and not the Mozilla Bullies.

--
*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?

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

> 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.

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

--
*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?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen
Ed Mullen wrote:

> So, if someone calls you Dickhead it's just a name, right?  No slur,
> insult, or attack intended or felt?

no, its an attack that was slanted towards me; whereas
Mozilla Bullies is just a name given to a certain group
of people

--
*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?

BJ-20
In reply to this post by Carey-16
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 11/30/08 9:25 AM, Carey's opinion was expressed:

> I have Zero tolerance for any sort of personal attack/insinuation.

Yes, most of us have zero tolerance for personal attacks, but the issue
is how each of us see something as a "personal attack" versus a harmless
irritation . . . all over the map with different sensibilities and
"political correctness" . . . and what about religious people?  While
some religious views have zero tolerance (for many things, BTW), others
are extremely tolerant of most anything.

--
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 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"

On 12/1/08 5:58 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's opinion was expressed:

> BJ wrote:
>
>> Interesting and amusing comebacks (I'll have to file these in the
>> archives of my mind)
>
> if you do, then they might get lost! ;-) :-) :-D

Now see . . . right there is an example of how arbitrary all this
personal attack stuff is.

I thought this was FUNNY, but some might take it as offensive,
especially if there's Alzheimer's in the family (which my wife does
have, but I prefer to see the lighter side of it, as callous as that
might seem, or else I'd get VERY despondent . . . maybe that callousness
is my defense mechanism or a coping mechanism to keep from getting too
depressed about the whole Alzheimer's thing).  And notice that Grant DID
use emoticons, which pretty much shows that his intent was not nasty.
But even if he hadn't used emoticons, I would still think it was funny.

Gotta keep a twisted sense of humor about this Alzheimer's stuff.

--
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?

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

> Terry R. wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> he's putting me into the idiot and lower life class
>

you'd rather be in the bully and lower life class?
_______________________________________________
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:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>> So, if someone calls you Dickhead it's just a name, right?  No slur,
>> insult, or attack intended or felt?
>
> no, its an attack that was slanted towards me; whereas Mozilla Bullies
> is just a name given to a certain group of people
>

I consider it an attack
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1 ... 78910111213 ... 31