Posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2003, at 23:19:22
In reply to Re: blocked for 9 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on October 22, 2003, at 21:00:40
> Tabitha described an hypothetical situation, e.g. "the email contained obscenity and violent imagery". As that language is descriptive, not judgmental like "nasty", would the descriptive terms be acceptable to you?
> Is a statement like "I know that (situation X) is false" an acceptable alternative to describing the situation as lying?
Those are better, at least. It's hard to be definitive without a context...
> Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
Would it be with the permission of the author of the email?
And what would be the point of the above? Might there be other ways to accomplish that?
> No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
If no one's mentioned by name, then lots of people may feel accused...
> My gut reaction is that people want to feel safe, and your intent is to keep things emotionally safe, but there is a lack of congruence between the concepts. People are not feeling safe, and when they try to discuss it, they get banned. It's not working.
It may be because someone doesn't feel safe that they post something uncivil, but (1) that doesn't make it more safe and (2) there are civil alternatives.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:266922
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/272135.html