Posted by NikkiT2 on February 24, 2003, at 9:45:03
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2's post-John V-more, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:31:20
Lou,
this really is my final post to you on this subject.
I stated that I had read all the replies in this thread, infact, I have read every single post in PB Admin as it stands, so linking me to other posts does nothing to help my understanding.
I wanted to know what you thought, not what John or Arthur thought.
If Dr Bob were to take each case on its own merit, I can see many problems. One being that it would take up yet more of his time, which I guess he doesn;t have an awful lot of. Secondly, he would then be accused of having a bias toward one person or another.
By having a strict policy that is enforced across the board, reduces the risk of such accusations (eg, of having bias toward certain people)Another option that came up was peer votes. This is obviously not a good idea, as then "popular" people would be less likely to receive a ban than those who people find generally annoyinga nd would like to see banned.
I am still shocked that you equate this to the segregation of black people. Dr Bob has one clear policy that is applied to anyone and everyone.
Incivility hurts, upsets and offends people. I do not see that as a right.
Maybe you're lucky and feel safe in your life, and as such don;t mind what is said to you or about you. Personally I do care whether my friends are hurt, and I do care about what is said about me.
There are people here who I would love to give a peice of my mind to, but I do not want to upset anyone.
As you have used him as an example, (by linking to a post about his ban) Lost Boy in NYC. Do a search on all his posts, and maybe you will understand why many of us don;t feel safe having him around, and why Dr Bob felt the need to protect us.
I don;t see this as reducing your civil liberties.. I see it as protection.
poster:NikkiT2
thread:201785
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/203308.html