|
|
| discernment |
Carla, first and i have said this
repeatedly, i do not condone this type of action nor do think any
more or less of KUH in his repsonse to it.
I was saying as
with any matter of speculation, that it could all be put to rest if
we were to see the original post. As I mentioned before, if i were
to say i would like to see the OR man that killed those girls buried
alive in concrete, would I be guilty of a death threat? Was YKW2
guilty of a death threat when he said to a certain RADP member that
they shouldnt be allowed to breed? What if that person had a
pregnant wife or girlfriend? Would it mean that YKW2 would do
something to prevent them from breeding? Is that an implied threat?
Saying you wish someone would get run over by a train does not mean
that you are threatening a person. Too many people are taking too
many things at face value here instead of logically examining
matters. The reason I think it would help to see the KUH threat is
to stop this whole conjecture of whether it was actually a direct
threat on him, it would stop people judging his reaction, and lastly
we wouldnt even be having this discussion and neither one of us
would have had our blood pressure raised. When the FACTS are
represented, the CONJECTURE and RUMORS will cease.
You ask
who am i. I am merely someone who is trying to understand what is
going on in his whole mess. I am in no means an expert in death
threats nor claim to be. For that matter, neither are you. Have you
seen the threat?
For the record, I can not say what i would
have done in a similar position that KUH was in. I amy have done
the same things. I have never judged KUH on how he has handled
this whole matter. He did what he felt was right for him. You are
right we all act based on our perspective and experiences. My only
contention in this matter is to put the it to rest. |
|
|
| Carla0030 |
"You ask who am i. I am merely someone
who is trying to understand what is going on in his whole mess. I am
in no means an expert in death threats nor claim to be. For that
matter, neither are you. Have you seen the threat?"
I am not
sure what else I can say to explain this any better. I don't think
you're getting my point. I am not an expert nor do I NEED to be. I
haven't seen the threat but I don't need to. It's enough for me that
KUH did and was affected by it. It isn't because of my
relationship with him, it's because that is how I feel about this
issue. If someone posted a death threat or even just a threat to do
bodily harm to you I would feel the same way. If you posted here
saying that it happened and you took it seriously, that would be
enough for me to be concerned for you. Actually, if you didn't take
it seriously, I might even suggest that you should.
I'm not
stating everyone should feel as I do, but at least understand what
I'm saying. It happened to him; he is entitled to his feelings
regardless of whether anyone else thinks it's an overreaction or
ridiculous or pathetic.
|
|
|
| fantayzya |
Seeing the actual 'Death Threat' really
isn't important to me. In fact, I don't think it should be relevant
to anyone. Even if you saw it, it would still be interpreted by each
of us in our own way. Regardless of wording, some would say the fuss
is justified, some would argue it's being an joke, albeit in poor
taste prompted by the events at the time. Both sides could very
likely be correct too.
Not that long ago I was in a
situation at work where my lead was on the receiving end of the
simple statement, "You started this, you'd better be prepared to
finish it" and then when asked what exactly was meant by that, got
the response "Watch your back"
She took it to labor
relations.
This is not an irrational timid person. She and I
work in a field that is predominately male and are often dealing
with attitude from 'the guys' simply due to our gender. Things that
realistically should have been handled legally. But because life is
what it is, that hasn't happened. Yet despite her well known record
of letting things go, and bygones be bygones, and considering the
source or whatever you choose to call it-not to mention her great
reputation as someone who will pull her weight on the job and do the
job well, in the eyes of anyone evalutating, allowances for gender
NOT considered. She became the victim of so much crap for taking
action that it very nearly disrupted even her marriage. She was
called every name in the book, and endured cracks about using her
gender to get what she wanted. Many felt she was over reacting.
Bet you think so too based on what I've told you so far. For
that simple statement directed at her, yeah, I would too.
What I haven't told you yet is that this person making the
threat had also in the past come into work with a gun and threatened
a general supervisor and his entire family. He was known for
seriously erratic behavior. Things you wouldn't even believe. That a
couple of weeks before I had found him propping open the mouth of a
dead mouse with a screw because that's how he wanted rigor mortis to
set in so it would be that way when he skinned it and mounted it to
hang the pelt over his tool box. Or that he had been calling this
lady every night for the prior 2 weeks at 3 and 4 a.m. and hanging
up. She has caller ID and he didn't bother to hide who he was.
Intimidation was a game with him.
Still think she was
over-reacting? He's off on sick leave now or yes, he'd still be
working there. They did move him out of our area though so he was no
longer MY back-up and I no longer have to trust that a huge hunk of
steel will comd down on my head when I crawl into a press. The logic
of allowing him to stay was that he was obviously ill so to fire his
butt would be discrimination.
The point of all this is that
the wording really doesn't matter. In light of what was going on in
KUH's world at the time, he felt he needed to take it seriously.
Your seeing what was actually said really doesn't matter, nor does
your opinion on how KUH and in reality the staff at RCH handled
that particular issue. We all do what we think we must for ourselves
and ours. Anyone else's opinion is just that, and while entitled to
it, wouldn't mean squat to me if I were dealing with something like
that. What would matter to me is the fact that yes, it might have
been a simple online post and in reality mean nothing, but I don't
know that person making that threat, or what they might be capable
of. Do I really wish to take ANY chances with my family? Only KUH
really knows all that was going on in regard to this, and actually
he might not even know, but for you, me or anyone to presume that
from reading the actual words we could decide the validity of his or
anyone's reaction to them is arrogant and unreasonable.
as
others have stated, JMO
Lori |
|
|
| discernment |
I was merely posing the possibility in
order to stop the whole is it or is it not a death threat posts that
seem to be popping up here alot.
As i have stated many
times, KUH did what he thought best for himself and his family. I
am not nor have i judged him in any way based on this particular
situation.
I was merely responding to the numerous posts
that are trying to debate what does and what does not consitute a
death threat.
Again, i do not condone or support making a
death threat of any kind, implied or otherwise, towards another
individual. i just found the discussion compelling and offered what
i thought may have been a solution. As stated, even if it were
shared with the rest of us it might still be open to interpretation.
Thank you for providing me with this insight.
This is a type
of "slippery slope" agrument to begin with. I hope you all will see
that i was merely trying to be part of teh solution. I apologize if
i became part of the problem.
|
|
|
| OhMickeyYoureSoFine |
quote:
judy wrote:
The thing is that a whole group, or a number of
groups, are all being painted with the same brush. HOw does a
death threat made by one person justify the "damages report" where
people are being asked to search newsgroups for opinions and log
them as crimes?
I think an example that helps to illustrate
this is here:
http://novogate.com/forums/1461099-1.html
In this thread, a regular on this forum has made a blatantly
threatening sounding statement in the title, "So where Can I Kick
some YKW2 Ass?"
This is followed up by some encouraging words
from another regular of this forum, Phamtom. The person making the
threat said the previous day in another thread: "Jeff, there is
nobody on the face of this earth that has more personal issue with
YKW2 and (maybe) YKW than I may have. "
If he has more
personal issues with YKW2 than anyone on earth, then his threats
towards YKW2 have more ominous credibility than from anyone on this
earth. The fact that YKW2's co-host KUH has received death threats,
makes this threat seem doubly serious.
Despite having this
brought to the moderators attention, nothing has been done. So what
can be said about the forum as whole? Does it condone or tolerate
threats, especially from people who express extreme real life
hatreds towards the target? If heaven forbid something did happen to
YKW2 foreshadowed or incited by this post, would this site be legally
liable? Similar cases have been successfully litigated.
So
you see, sometimes an entire forum or group can be culpable for the
statements of a single person.
A similar example would be a
workplace that fails to confront, condemn, and put an end to ongoing
employee harassment that has been brought to management attention. A
single employee did the harassment, but the entire organization is
morally and legally liable.
[Edited by
OhMickeyYoureSoFine] |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
I find that scare tactics such as these
generally don't work on people who actually use their brains and
recognize them for what they are.
Mickeysofine, you keep
targetting one particular poster. I'm beginning to wonder if you
have a problem with that person and anyone associated with him/her.
I also see you adopting and/or mirroring the tactics that you've
seen on the defunct YKW board. (hence the threat of legal
responsibilities and ramifications of this new board)
Since
they seem to have worked so well on you, do you presume that they'll
work well on others? This is my guess. |
|
|
| phamton |
Wow, my name got mentioned!
quote:
In this thread, a regular on this forum has made a blatantly
threatening sounding statement in the title, "So where Can I Kick
some YKW2 Ass?"
This is followed up by some encouraging
words from another regular of this forum, Phamtom.
If you had been here the night my post went up
you would understand why I said "I think you just did."
Dsorcerer had just posted to the BC board in response to something
YKW2 had said there. I was referring to Dsorcerer's post on the BC. I
then said in the same post: "I left you a message on the Jeff
Carey thread." Then if you go to the Jeff Carey thread to look
for the message I left for Dsorcerer, you would see I said this:
"BTW, Dsorcerer, I loved your recent post on the BC. I hope YKW
realizes what a jewel she has in you and your wife. If YKW takes
back some of the controls from YKW2 I think everyone will be the
better for it."
So, I think you can see I wasn't
encouraging anyone to kick some ass. I'm sorry if it came out like
that. And I do appreciate being called a "regular" on this group.
Although, I only see myself as a participant, it made me feel a
little more important.
I really do want this common ground
to work and I certainly don't want to offend those of you who come
here from RCH.
Bev
|
|
|
| Robin |
I think you are the only one on this
site who is interpreting the comment as wanting to do violence.
I took it as a figure of speech.
Literally...it says
the poster would like to where he can go to have the opportunity for
his foot make contact with part of said other person's ass. Not that
he will do it. Not even that he wants to kick an entire ass. Just
'some' ass.
I will give you, it might not have been the best
choice of words, but I think you are blowing the comment out of
proportion.
Robin |
|
|
| Dab |
Despite having this brought to the
moderators attention, nothing has been done. So what can be said
about the forum as whole? Does it condone or tolerate threats,
especially from people who express extreme real life hatreds towards
the target? If heaven forbid something did happen to YKW2
foreshadowed or incited by this post, would this site be legally
liable? Similar cases have been successfully litigated.
So
you see, sometimes an entire forum or group can be culpable for the
statements of a single person.
A similar example would be a
workplace that fails to confront, condemn, and put an end to ongoing
employee harassment that has been brought to management attention. A
single employee did the harassment, but the entire organization is
morally and legally liable. >>>
For anyone
considering that the two go together, a forum on the internet vs a
common ground workplace, I'd love to see some case law. No one here
is "employed", this is not governed by the state or federal work
laws. People on the internet forums come and go. Mighty hefty load
you want to put on unpaid, unemployed (by the site not to say you
don't work elsewhere ) moderators and owners of Disney themed sites.
I guess anyone could go to civil court and say that because
something was said on the internet another person acted on it. You
are talking apples and oranges with worksite laws where people
actually know each other personally and have to be at that workplace
and adhere to federal and state work laws.
If you want a better
comparison perhaps relate it to something similiar. Abortion clinic
protestors who get together on a website to plan an attack. Now that
would hold some merit. I don't agree with someone saying they want
to kick someone's ass but I also don't like legal mumble jumble
intimidation. Sorry in advance to everyone but it sure seems I
studied the wrong law in college because I never saw any of this
crud but then again, I steered away from civil law as much as
possible. |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
Dab wrote:
If you want a better comparison perhaps relate it
to something similiar. Abortion clinic protestors who get together
on a website to plan an attack. Now that would hold some merit.
I also believe, in the above example, the person(s)
damaged by the abortion protestors would have to seek DOCUMENTED
evidence that this web-site or BB group did willingly and knowingly
plan and carry out the attack that did damage and personal injury to
the person damaged on a specific date and PROVE the abortion
protestor's intent to do damage on that date. (Does that make any
sense? I meant that they would need specific and unrefutable proof
meaning: we're going to build X bomb and place it in Y clinic on Z
date. Everything else is just conjecture.
In addition to
finding this "evidence", they would also have to bring their
grievance to court, file a lawsuit, hire lawyers (or, in small
claims court, gather their evidence), and then wait for a trial and
hope the Judge ruled in their favor. There's no guarantee that when
you bring a case to court, you will win. No matter WHAT you may have
seen on TV or how many times someone with a case "like" the one you
think you have has won.
Just some food for
thought. |
|
|
| Dan K |
It seems to me that, while it's
overreacting to suggest that the "kick some ass" comment is legally
actionable, the legalistic defenses being offered here miss the most
important point. The issue that should be relevant to the expressed
purpose of this forum is, what's the best way to exchange
conflicting views so as to promote mutual understanding and invite
reconciliation? I guarantee you that belligerent macho boasting
about "kicking some ass" ain't it. Not even close. Not by the
longest shot.
Granted, this isn't the same as a hostile work
environment situation, and literal violence pretty clearly wasn't
the intent. That said, so what? Rather than snipe at the RCH folks
for being oversensitive, why not try to be minimally sensitive
yourselves and think for a moment about the way they are likely to
receive your comments. To chop logic and split hairs on this matter
is not productive. I understand that there is a history of hurt and
provocation that the person who made the remark has suffered;
nevertheless, it's clearly hurtful and provocative in itself. The
best thing to do would have been not to say it. The next best thing
would have been to promptly apologize and retract it. Defending the
remark, however narrowly, just perpetuates the offensiveness
further. It's not even minimally constructive. What's the
point? |
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
Dan K wrote:
What's the point?
Hi Dan, welcome to Common Ground!
The
questions you ask have no easy answers.
When to censor. What
to censor. To what point do we censor? At this point we flat don't
allow namecalling.
The Mods are trying to be very careful
here since censorship is indeed one of the subjects of debate.
The point?
The original intent of "Common Ground"
was to rid other Disney groups of the debates that raged there. If
you look on the front page "Out Back" runs a very close race with
"DIS-cussion" for posts. Obviously there is a need or want that it
is fulfilling.
|
|
|
| Dan K |
I think I understand the dilemma you
face, Crank, but my comments weren't advocating any kind of
censorship. What I was calling for was self-control, and voluntary
vocal resistance to offensive rhetoric by everyone here, not
enforced top-down control. My point was simply that it's not helpful
to say stuff like "kick some ass," and that making a principled
defense of freedom of speech doesn't require splitting hairs to
defend or justify or minimize the offensiveness of that content. I
believe people do have the right to say that. I also believe that
they shouldn't say it here, because it isn't necessary to say stuff
like that to express an opinion, and because its counter-productive
to maintaining a clear channel of communication. The only thing it
produces is more anger, upset, and pissed-off people. If people are
offended because you don't agree with them, that's their problem. If
you give them good cause for offense with gratuitously provocative
fighting words, its your problem-- and a big problem for everybody
else who's trying to figure out what the hell really happened and
what they think about all of this. |
|
|
| Carla0030 |
Wow, DanK. Welcome! I must say you are
a breath of fresh air and reason. It seems several feel the way you
do about this particular poster's expression but I'm not sure it was
as clearly defined until now. Thank you.
The problem I see
is twofold for the mods: This poster is the husband of one of them.
Censureship leaves a bitter taste to many.
Crank: I'm sorry
but again I must point out that namecalling is here. It is posted. I
know since I've been called a name. |
|
|
| OhMickeyYoureSoFine |
What really matters is what is right.
Forget legalistic defenses, and what is legally actionable. You know
what, at various times in history, slavery and genocide were the law
of the land. Sorry for the hyperbole, but the point is that it
ethically dangerous to let the law be your sole guide of what to do,
of what is right and wrong. Sometimes, doing the right thing means
doing much more than the law requires. In rare instances, it may
mean breaking it.
Doing the right thing requires a higher
standard and deeper consideration than just doing the minimum the
law asks of you. This also relates to group responsibility for an
individuals actions, sometimes onlookers have a responsibility to
say something when a group member is doing something wrong. All
kinds of the most ugly and vile trash talking is not legally
actionable, but is that really what you want your group to
represent? Might you be a little bit culpable for the character of
the group if you say nothing? Isn't it possible for the actions of a
single person to change the reputation of a forum as a whole, when
left unchallenged? Moderators may have a special responsibility to
define the character and standards of behavior for their forum.
Note what the originator of this forum says when describing
the purpose and goal of it.
quote:
Coastalwader said,
A place [...] to try to set aside past
differences and move forward. We aren't here to re-open the debate
about breakfast's, past or present. [...]
Yet in this very thread, the moderators have
decided that rubbernecker's demonizing psycho-analysis of KUH is
such a model posting, it should be made a sticky to be placed
permanently at the top of the forum. This character assasinating
post speculates and attributes the worst of motives for KUH. Now
remember, the stated purpose of this forum not to re-open the debate
about breakfast's, it is to try and set aside past differences and
move forward. Rubbernecker's attempt to this with respect to YKW2,
consists of hoping that "his pathetic little career will be ruined".
Remember, name calling is nominally banned on this forum, but this
poisonous talk is deemed to be such a model posting it is made a
sticky permanently at the top of the list. Oh, it is perfectly
legal. Is it right? Is it consistent with the supposed goals of the
forum, or was that a complete joke to begin with?
Does this
group really want to have a reputation as being a nexus for those
seeking to demonize YKW2 and KUH, and cheering for the downfall of
the Clubhouse? |
|
|
| fantayzya |
My take on the issue of censorship
here:
No matter what we do in that regard, we as moderators
are screwed. If I pull a post from someone from RCH, I'm being one
sided and perpetuating 'hate' (sorry, I promised myself I wouldn't
use that word EVER here, but it's the one most commonly bantered
about by my friends at RCH so it applies.
If I pull one from
the opposing view, the most common cry is prevention of rights to
free speech.
So, (and I do my best not to cuss too, but)
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
and this has
NOTHING to do with the fact that the person you're highlighting is
my husband. In fact, I resent the implication that I would sacrifice
my intergrity for anyone, or that someone who truely cares for me
would ask me to do so, and that IS what I felt you were questioning
with that remark. I read that as 'Does Lori have enough integrity to
do what others see as her job here when it could potentially involve
her husband' Second choice for interpretation is 'She won't delete
it because Ed said it'
FYI. Francine beat me to it yesterday
when she was removing and moving inappropriate threads from
DIS-cussion.
Not that what my husband and I discuss at home
is anyone's buisness, but we have in fact talked about this and
we're working on it. In fact I felt last night he did quite well.
Yeah he might not have made any friends among those upset by him,
but he did try to tone it down. Even with a comment made that
implied my life was awful due to my having to live with him, and
cracks like "How old are you?" No, there was no name calling there,
so that would be okay right? Semantics in my opinion, which is what
a lot of this boils down to.
I don't like some of the
language, I prefer not to use it. I do my darndest to be more
delicate in my choice of words myself, but not everyone is me.
(thank God)
The whole 'Kick Ass' thing is way blown up.
Yeah, there is obviously some serious animosity there. No denying
that, but Ed in NO WAY hates or wishes physical harm to come to
YKW2, or anyone else involved in this despite what you insist is
his intent. What he, and I hate in regard to YKW2 is his 'webside'
manner. How he has treated people in the past, and how he continues
to treat them now, as evidenced by his response last week to Hallie.
It's deplorable, rude, uncalled for, unreasonable and often
downright cruel. How is Ed any worse? Oh, yeah, language. I'll tell
him...next time it should be 'Kick Butt' Except that this wouldn't
be as impressive as the verbal prowess we've seen from the subject
of Ed's posts would it?
Sorry for that sarcasm but the
nitpicky stuff from both sides has got to stop or there is no chance
of ever moving on. Many of us on either side are still taking
anything anyone says and whittling it down just praying to find
something to run with. We're still arguing over things that really
have no bearing on anything in the grand scheme of things despite
how badly we might think we need to know that particular answer.
There have been amazing concessions and a huge effort made
by folks on both sides of this at trying to see a different
perspective and even if agreement can't always be reached at least
the other side has been aknowledged. Based on where this was just a
few days ago, I think that's amazing. Please don't let one person,
even if it's a very vocal person, my husband or otherwise stop that
momentum.
As for my husband's posts. It's not my right or my
responsibility to apologize for him, his views or how he expresses
them. I can only do that for myself. If it is felt that Ed's post
are ever such that they should be deleted, and in fact some have
been, or have been edited even by Ed himself, I hope my fellow
moderators understand that I will in NO WAY take that personally. I
feel if they think under the standards we're trying to set here that
it should go, then it should go. That goes for anything I post as
well.
Moving right along now...
Lori~ |
|
|
| Dan K |
Sorry to repeat myself, but the issue
keeps being framed as one of censorship -- to delete or not to
delete? -- and I feel very strongly that framing it that way leads
to a false dichotomy that can and should be avoided. You don't have
to delete every thread containing offensive posts, or even every
offensive post, or even ANY offensive posts that fall short of
outright incitement to harm. Personally, I haven't seen anything
posted here that I think rises to that last (illegal) level. On the
other hand, there has been a lot of needlessly provocative and
offensive stuff posted here, and that's a shame. As OhMickey says,
it isn't right, and it also isn't right that people get applauded
for it instead of chastised.
I don't personally think the
offensive stuff should be or needs to be deleted. It's unpleasant,
but it's also part of reality. Once it's out there, it has to be
dealt with and processed for us to have a hope of getting beyond it.
When a post or a thread is deleted, that basically has the effect of
pretending it didn't happen, of rewriting history. People get mad,
and people need to deal with people getting mad. If you pop off and
flame somebody and then think better of it, you can't unring that
bell. That person already saw it, and so maybe did some other
people. For my money, a heartfelt (or even grudging) apology and
retraction is much more effective at promoting true healing than
trying to amend the record after the fact.
That said, I want
to reiterate that deletion is not the only option for resisting
incivility, in ourselves or others. I would make the following
modest proposals:
1. Think about how what you say is likely
to be received, not just by people who agree with you, but by people
who don't. Can you express yourself in another way that gets your
basic point across without directly insulting someone else?
2. If somebody provokes you and you pop off in the heat of
the moment, the damage is probably not irreparable. Take a deep
breath, review people's responses to your post, decide whether they
have a legitimate beef with what you said, and if necessary, grit
your teeth and APOLOGIZE. It won't be fun, but you may surprised at
how gratified others will be.
3. If you see somebody else
say something offensive, don't take refuge in "freedom of speech" or
"I'm not responsible for them" -- SPEAK OUT. Call them on it! Raise
your voices! Say "that's not right". Say "that's not necessary". Say
"I defend his right to say it, but HE SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID IT THAT
WAY."
Every one if us has the power to take these steps all
by ourselves. Every one of us is responsible for the tone that
prevails in this forum. Every one of us can and should step up to
the plate. Not one of us has a good excuse not to. |
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
Dan K wrote:
I think I understand the dilemma you face, Crank,
but my comments weren't advocating any kind of censorship. What I
was calling for was self-control, and voluntary vocal resistance
to offensive rhetoric by everyone here, not enforced top-down
control. My point was simply that it's not helpful to say stuff
like "kick some ass," and that making a principled defense of
freedom of speech doesn't require splitting hairs to defend or
justify or minimize the offensiveness of that content. I believe
people do have the right to say that. I also believe that they
shouldn't say it here, because it isn't necessary to say stuff
like that to express an opinion, and because its
counter-productive to maintaining a clear channel of
communication. The only thing it produces is more anger, upset,
and pissed-off people. If people are offended because you don't
agree with them, that's their problem. If you give them good cause
for offense with gratuitously provocative fighting words, its your
problem-- and a big problem for everybody else who's trying to
figure out what the hell really happened and what they think about
all of this.
Excellent points, all! I wholeheartedly agree.
Perhaps if the two parties could take it to Private
Messaging?
What ya say guys? For the benefit of the
forum? |
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
Carla0030 wrote:
Crank: I'm sorry but again I must point
out that namecalling is here. It is posted. I know since I've been
called a name.
Sorry Carla, we're spread pretty thin here.
Is this the "stepford" thing? |
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
OhMickeyYoureSoFine wrote:
Does this group really want to
have a reputation as being a nexus for those seeking to demonize
YKW2 and KUH, and cheering for the downfall of the Clubhouse?
LOL! Is that what "sticky" means?
I
thought it meant that things could get a little "sticky"!
Sorry. Thanks for the insight. I'll remove the
stick. |
|
|
| Coastalwader |
My take.
I'm seeing people work
through things. It's baby steps, but IT is happening. I've seen
people go back and edit their own posts because someone pointed out
that the way they read something was offensive.
Do I cringe
at some of the posts? Yes, big time. But, I have decided for now to
just go a little with the flow.
There was an exchange
yeterday between d-r and another poster here. If a person read that
and still doesn't think that SOME progress is being made here, then
I can only think that person doesn't WANT to see progress made.
Guys, it's that simple to me.
What we are allowing to stand
as posted now could very well change as time goes by. We could also
pull the next post put up. If it starts coming across as a test of
the limits it just means that someone isn't interested in tyring to
work through this and it's time for them to move on. Thats the way
it is.
The reason I stuck the discussion about how people
felt these debates should be handled at the top is I'm hoping people
will read through that before they post here. I think it's important
that people know how other people feel when looking at a
controversial post. Angie Henry made some great points, and I saw
rubbernecker stand back and say, yeah, i see your point. THAT IS
PROGRESS. All the posts in that thread stayed because as the thread
progressed, some people were changing they way they posted and it
shows.
All I can say is this, if you aren't seeing it, you
aren't looking for it. It's baby steps, but it's happening.
|
|
|
| fantayzya |
{{{{{Crank}}}}}}
Thank you
thank you. I figured you guys must have some reason for keeping that
thing up top so I didn't say anything, but I really was wishing it
would maybe start sliding down the page and eventually "out of sight
out of mind" You and Coastal as administrators are the ones able to
opt to 'stick' a thread at the top, so I couldn't outrank you on
this one lol.
Next time, you're gettin a PM or email bucko!
Lori |
|
|
| Carla0030 |
Lori, I apologize. I did not intend for
you to interpret my post as questioning your integrity. What I
actually meant when I posted was that you would have a hard time
being objective because the post is made by your dh and you know
what he means even if it isn't clear to those of us reading. The
other thing I meant was that it could make for an awkward situation
for the other three moderators if they feel a post of his is over
the top. Perhaps it was a bit presumptious of me to think the other
moderators would feel awkward, but I don't think it's illogical to
see that you might not be objective. I am basically pretty straight
forward. I do not have an agenda and I'm not here representing any
views but my own. I'm sorry if I incite a reaction to look beyond my
words. I don't know how else to post so that I am understood.
This is my concern about having a posting 'free for all'.
Don't we tend to assume the worst about each other when all we read
is negative?
|
|
|
| Coastalwader |
quote:
Dan K wrote:
1. Think about how what you say is likely to
be received, not just by people who agree with you, but by people
who don't. Can you express yourself in another way that gets your
basic point across without directly insulting someone else?
2. If somebody provokes you and you pop off in the heat of
the moment, the damage is probably not irreparable. Take a deep
breath, review people's responses to your post, decide whether
they have a legitimate beef with what you said, and if necessary,
grit your teeth and APOLOGIZE. It won't be fun, but you may
surprised at how gratified others will be.
3. If you see
somebody else say something offensive, don't take refuge in
"freedom of speech" or "I'm not responsible for them" -- SPEAK
OUT. Call them on it! Raise your voices! Say "that's not right".
Say "that's not necessary". Say "I defend his right to say it, but
HE SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID IT THAT WAY."
Every one if us has
the power to take these steps all by ourselves. Every one of us is
responsible for the tone that prevails in this forum. Every one of
us can and should step up to the plate. Not one of us has a good
excuse not to.
Dan the MAN!
Hey, would you allow me to
take the above quote (and maybe some other things you said in other
threads)and work it to something about how we want to see things
work around here? |
|
|
| Dan K |
Coastal, feel free to take whatever you
like. My words are your words. I'm very pleased that you found my
contribution useful. |
|
|
| Coastalwader |
quote:
Dan K wrote:
Coastal, feel free to take whatever you like. My
words are your words. I'm very pleased that you found my
contribution useful.
Useful?!? Shoot man, not only useful, I think
you have a better handle on this whole mess than I do!
thanks again.
|
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
fantayzya wrote:
{{{{{Crank}}}}}}
Next time, you're
gettin a PM or email bucko!
Lori
A {{{slap}}} upside the head is sometimes in
order too!
Feel free! |
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
Dan K wrote:
I think I understand the dilemma you face, Crank,
but my comments weren't advocating any kind of censorship. What I
was calling for was self-control, and voluntary vocal resistance
to offensive rhetoric by everyone here, not enforced top-down
control. My point was simply that it's not helpful to say stuff
like "kick some ass," and that making a principled defense of
freedom of speech doesn't require splitting hairs to defend or
justify or minimize the offensiveness of that content. I believe
people do have the right to say that. I also believe that they
shouldn't say it here, because it isn't necessary to say stuff
like that to express an opinion, and because its
counter-productive to maintaining a clear channel of
communication. The only thing it produces is more anger, upset,
and pissed-off people. If people are offended because you don't
agree with them, that's their problem. If you give them good cause
for offense with gratuitously provocative fighting words, its your
problem-- and a big problem for everybody else who's trying to
figure out what the hell really happened and what they think about
all of this.
I agree. Good points all. They should be
required reading here...
|
|
|
| Lunarlady |
I'm probably a little oversensative
about this because I'm facing it with the "under 30" crowd at work
and it's driving me nuts...but I've been thinking on the whole
"rules of the game" that are being drawn up here.
If I have
to sit here and consider rules and regulations and how to "word" my
posts so that "no one" can be insulted (which is
impossible....someone can be 'offended' because I merely show my
face and they don't like me), then I'm going to have to bail right
now.
The whole PC-speak is getting to me. Perfect example: a
co-worker takes 4 hours to do something that takes the rest of us
under an hour. When we complain about it, our 30-something boss says
she's not doing the "wrong" way, she's doing it "her" way and we
shouldn't be saying she's doing it "wrong".
I've had to come
up with a whole new language so I don't "offend" anyone and have so
far been retorting with: "Well "her" way is ineffective and is
putting us 3 hours behind everytime she does it "her" way. How does
that benefit the company?" His reply? "I'll speak to her and see if
I can't get her to try it another way". And nothing changes.
If people are going to take words and infer to to mean
things that the original poster never meant, then refer back to the
"rules and regulations" saying the poster MUST take into effect
EVERY single point of view and "police" themselves lest they offend
someone, then this forum (and perhaps the web-site) will turn into
one of complete boredom where every single topic goes like this:
Going to WDW is fun.
Yes, I agree.
Me too.
I
think so, too.
Killing people is bad.
Oh you're
absolutely right.
I agree.
Me too.
I like Grey
Poupon.
Me too!
Use it every chance I get.
I love the
stuff.
Uh-huh.
You bet.
I'm sorry, but just
about everything I write offends someone no matter what. Some people
consider if you disagree with their opinion, you've offended them.
It doesn't matter if what you wrote wasn't particularly offensive,
one person can speak up and say "I had a COUSIN who OWNED an 80ft
Alligator and he/she was VERY upset when it died. I can't believe
the insensativity of LunarLady when she said 80ft Alligators don't
belong in people's backyards and if they tresspass onto her
property, she'll shoot them. I think she owes me an apology for
being so insensative to people who want to have a pet Alligator."
If I have to consider whether or not ANY POV I express here
might offend someone, then I'm better off just not posting here and
finding somewhere else like RADP where I can say what I want, bad or
good.
(Sorry, just got back from a really rough day
at work.) |
|
|
| TrpltJanie |
quote:
Lunarlady wrote:
If I have to sit here and consider rules
and regulations and how to "word" my posts so that "no one" can be
insulted (which is impossible....someone can be 'offended' because
I merely show my face and they don't like me), then I'm going to
have to bail right now.
**Please don't. You just had a bad
day at work and maybe with a weekend break from all that stuff
might be good for you.
If people are going to take
words and infer to to mean things that the original poster never
meant, then refer back to the "rules and regulations" saying the
poster MUST take into effect EVERY single point of view and
"police" themselves lest they offend someone, then this forum (and
perhaps the web-site) will turn into one of complete boredom.
**Well-said. I've noticed that others who flamed for
simply stating their opinions because they didn't word their posts
'correctly' even if the opinions was presented in a nice, calm
manner. In my opinion, PC posts do more harm than good when it
comes to sensitive matters. We need to remember to "agree to
disagree".
I'm sorry, but just about everything I
write offends someone no matter what. Some people consider if you
disagree with their opinion, you've offended them.
It doesn't
matter if what you wrote wasn't particularly offensive,
****Yeah...I noticed that :-( and sometimes they'll even
resort to flaming instead of talking it out.
one
person can speak up and say "I had a COUSIN who OWNED an 80ft
Alligator and he/she was VERY upset when it died. I can't believe
the insensativity of LunarLady when she said 80ft Alligators don't
belong in people's backyards and if they tresspass onto her
property, she'll shoot them. I think she owes me an apology for
being so insensative to people who want to have a pet Alligator."
****You're right. If they are offended by someone's post,
it is NOT benefical to use that tactic to complain about the post.
Instead of typing up this "LunarLady is so insensitive" post, the
complainer can do this:
"LunarLady--I beg to differ on the
subject of 80ft alligator since my cousin had a 80ft pet alligator
and he was the sweetest thing I've ever known and my cousin was
heartbroken when it died. Granted that you're not fond of these
reptiles and not all of them are like my cousin's alligator but I
found some interesting stuff on alligators and would like to share
them with you......But I do respect your feelings on that matter."
If I have to consider whether or not ANY POV I express
here might offend someone, then I'm better off just not posting
here and finding somewhere else like RADP where I can say what I
want, bad or good.
(Sorry, just got back from a really rough
day at work.)
*passing a box of chocolates* I'm sorry to hear
that you had a bad day at work. I still think we all need to talk it
out and be respected for it---this rule does not apply in derogatory
messages posted in order to incite members.
[Edited
by TrpltJanie] | |