[Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
608 messages Options
1 ... 891011121314 ... 31
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
BJ wrote:

> 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.

Someone might have taken it the wrong way, thats why I
used the smilies.

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

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

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

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

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

> The date and time was 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"...
>


Why am I at a loss for words, I asked YOU questions and you refuse to
answer! Seems to me I am not the one at a loss for words.

This is a question

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

Or cannot you answer a simple question?

_______________________________________________
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:
>> 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

well, whats an attack to one isn't to another.

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

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

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

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

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

> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> 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.
>


Oh, but Jerk is an attack, in my books AND Terry's Books
ergo, if using Jerk instead of Bully is okay, your use of the term
'Mozilla Bullies' IS an attack!


So, what makes it okay for YOU to attack others then? And then if anyone
says anything to you, you run and hide crying "I'm being attacked!"

Terry thinks calling people Jerks is an attack (so do I)
Terry thinks calling them Bullies is not an attack (not me)
So, if you are switching to calling them Jerks, then the INTENT of the
'Mozilla Bullies' term IS an attack in the first place.

Can't agree with your own oft stated (and erroneous) 'Free Speech' line?
YOU can make attacks on anyone, even the moderators, because it is free
speech to you, but no one is allowed to use free speech when it comes to
talking about you?

And btw, free speech as guaranteed by the constitution does not apply to
private forums. Just like an editor of a newspaper can 'edit' what goes
in his paper, the owners of a private forum (such as mozilla.org hosts
here) can decide what can and cannot go in theirs. They can edit to
their hearts content.

The owners of hundreds of radio stations can 'ban' the Dixie Chicks over
what they saw as a political comment, so called free speech laws
notwithstanding.  This server is owned/hosted by Mozilla.org/Giganews,
and as such they (or their appointed representitives) can edit anything
on it, including your messages.

Simply put, free speech does NOT apply here. Free speech ONLY applies to
Government control in the first place, not private editing.  You are NOT
'free' to put up Nazi propaganda in say a church for example, they could
take it down, regardless of free speech laws.  You could write a
scathing rebuke on a newspaper column, there is no law that makes the
editor put in in the paper if they don't want to.

The moderators here, could, very well, if they wished, institute a
'personal attack' moderation policy - as I said, mozilla.org (or their
appointed representives) can edit this forum. Free speech does not apply
here. Nor does it apply in most media by the way. Television, movies,
newspapers, radio, can all be 'edited' for content, regardless of free
speech laws.
_______________________________________________
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?

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
On 01.12.2008 19:47, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

>> Gotta keep a twisted sense of humor about this Alzheimer's stuff.
>
> Someone might have taken it the wrong way, thats why I
> used the smilies.

So, the solution is to use smilies when you insult someone with a
personal attack .. how clever, you brain-dead idiot!!! :-) 8-) :-D

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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


You haven't been following the conversation have you? Or is it that you
have difficulties understanding the written word?


I think calling someone a jerk IS a personal attack, so does Terry
I think calling someone a bully IS a personal attack, Terry does not.

I think YOU are attacking the moderators every time you use the phrase
"Mozilla bullies".


Terry is the one who says saying 'Nir is one of the Mozilla Bullies' is
not an attack, so I asked him if saying he was one of a group of jerks
is an attack or not?

You are the one who is 'attacking' everytime you use the phrase 'Mozilla
Bullies'
You are the one who is basically saying it is OKAY to attack people here

Terry stated that using the phrase 'You are a...' is an attack.
So I asked if rephrasing that to 'you belong to a group of...' is okay.

You simply cannot read what is written it seems. I think calling someone
a jerk is an attack, I also think calling someone a bully is an attack.
So where do you get the idea that calling someone a jerk (or state they
belong to a group of such) is not an attack to me? I was asking Terry a
question, whether it was okay with him or not.

But of course, some people with limited comprehension of the English
language may be confuzzled by it.
_______________________________________________
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:
>>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Oh, but Jerk is an attack, in my books AND Terry's Books
> ergo, if using Jerk instead of Bully is okay, your use of the term
> 'Mozilla Bullies' IS an attack!
>
>
> So, what makes it okay for YOU to attack others then? And then if anyone
> says anything to you, you run and hide crying "I'm being attacked!"
>
> Terry thinks calling people Jerks is an attack (so do I)

excuse me, but you're the one saying calling people
jerks is not an attack.

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

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

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

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

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:
>>
>>> "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.
>>
>
>
> You haven't been following the conversation have you? Or is it that you
> have difficulties understanding the written word?
>
>
> I think calling someone a jerk IS a personal attack, so does Terry
> I think calling someone a bully IS a personal attack, Terry does not.
>
> I think YOU are attacking the moderators every time you use the phrase
> "Mozilla bullies".
>
>
> Terry is the one who says saying 'Nir is one of the Mozilla Bullies' is
> not an attack, so I asked him if saying he was one of a group of jerks
> is an attack or not?
>
> You are the one who is 'attacking' everytime you use the phrase 'Mozilla
> Bullies'
> You are the one who is basically saying it is OKAY to attack people here
>
> Terry stated that using the phrase 'You are a...' is an attack.
> So I asked if rephrasing that to 'you belong to a group of...' is okay.
>
> You simply cannot read what is written it seems. I think calling someone
> a jerk is an attack, I also think calling someone a bully is an attack.
> So where do you get the idea that calling someone a jerk (or state they
> belong to a group of such) is not an attack to me? I was asking Terry a
> question, whether it was okay with him or not.
>
> But of course, some people with limited comprehension of the English
> language may be confuzzled by it.

Dan, you're the one twisting things.  I've read things
perfectly.  You're the one saying calling someone a
jerk is more acceptable than calling them a bully.
Don't you know what you've typed? Do you type for the
fun of it?

--
*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 Jay Garcia
Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 01.12.2008 19:47, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
>  --- Original Message ---
>
>>> Gotta keep a twisted sense of humor about this Alzheimer's stuff.
>> Someone might have taken it the wrong way, thats why I
>> used the smilies.
>
> So, the solution is to use smilies when you insult someone with a
> personal attack .. how clever, you brain-dead idiot!!! :-) 8-) :-D
>

you got that right dim-wit! ;-) :-) :-D

--
*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?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by squaredancer
squaredancer wrote:

> On 01.12.2008 09:40, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
> generate the following:? :
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>  
>>> On 30.11.2008 16:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Phillip Jones,
>>> C.E.T. to generate the following:? :
>>>    
>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> BJ wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>>>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>>>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/08 7:02 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's opinion was expressed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  That
>>>>>>> post should be removed.
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>> Actually, even though he's kidding (I think . . . there's that "doubt"
>>>>>> part creeping in) . . . by your criteria that it only be personal, Ron,
>>>>>> your post would be removed, maybe you would be banned, or maybe since
>>>>>> there's "doubt" it would be . . . what? . . . elevated in the system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>> Can't see any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the
>>>>> weather is going to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>> The most accurate way of determining the weather where you are?
>>>> Stick your head out the window.
>>>>
>>>> If it gets wet its raining.
>>>> if it gets white its snowing if looks like dandruff but then bounces off
>>>> its sleeting.
>>>>
>>>> if it feels like some one is pelting your head with marble, golf ball.
>>>> tennis ball or softballs then its sleeting.
>>>>
>>>> If there is bright sun light then its sunny.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>> Phillip - I sure *hope* that you are not implying that Ron has no idea
>>> about how to tell the weather?? That would be very dodgy....
>>>
>>> reg
>>>    
>> Grin.  I live in Texas.  Sometimes we get all those types of weather,
>> the same DAY.
>>
>> I learned a long time ago never to say anything derogatory about
>> someone's religion, children, or (especially in Texas) their car.
>> People get really defensive in a hurry about those subjects.
>>
>>
>>  
> I read someplace, the the motto of the frontier west was:
> Ma hoss
> ma gun
> ma land
> ma wimmin
> with the importance of each in - more or less - that order.
> If anything was said that was considered derogatory, number two came
> into use!
> S'pose now, "ma hoss" is "ma car" and the rest remains.
>
> reg
Yes, pretty much, except for the Harley guys, and then it's 'my hog'.
Grin.


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

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

Ron Hunter
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 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.
>
Good evening.
Oops, did it again.  I'm really BAD.


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

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

Ron Hunter
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.
Even if it is "you are a gentleman and a scholar"?


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

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

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

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



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

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

Ron Hunter
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.
>
Funny.  I have never heard of them being called that by anyone, but you,
that is.


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

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

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

> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>> 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
>
> well, whats an attack to one isn't to another.
>
??  And 'Got a mirror?' is an attack to you, right?  Peter, discussing
this with you is rather similar to arguing with my wife.  She is always
right, and five minutes later will be taking the opposite viewpoint.


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

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

Ron Hunter
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.
>
>
Jerks I can tolerate, bullies arouse my anger, and I don't put up with them.
Somehow you seem to have the opposite response to the two.


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

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

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

> 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.
>>
>
>
I was wondering at the size of sleet in your area.....


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

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

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by BJ-20
BJ wrote:

> 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.
>
Amusingly enough, I am not fat, only obese.  On the other hand, the BMI,
  which is the measure by which I am 'obese' also considers Arnold
Swartzenegger 'obese'.  Now, obese like Arnold, I would like to be!
It's rather like the difference between 'excentric', and 'crazy'... a
few million dollars.


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

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

jetjock
In reply to this post by BJ-20
BJ wrote:

> 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.

  A thoughtful and reasoned response.

--

     >>>>>>>>>>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?

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

> 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.
>
I guess I should have been more specific.  By "all posts" I meant all
posts to the support groups.  What are the moderators doing if not
reviewing posts?  If they are not reviewing them, how do they know to
remove a post or ban someone?

--

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1 ... 891011121314 ... 31