From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 03:46:13 MDT
Harvey writes:
> matus@matus1976.com wrote,
> > Harvey said:
> > "If nobody makes a complaint, it implies that we unanimously want
> > the personal attacks to be allowed."
> >
> > Interesting, Harvey, that you commit the same false dichotomy that you
so
> > frequently criticize others on. Just because I dont complain when
someone
> > presents personal attacks doesnt mean I condone those personal
> > attacks!!! The world isnt binary!!!
>
> You make an excellent point. The above rule is from the ExI Board, not
from
> me. I strongly oppose this rule. I still maintain that a lack of
complaint
> from people cannot be used to indicate their support. I think the rules
> should be enforced at all times, not just when someone complains.
However,
> I am not in a position to force my viewpoint onto the ExI Board, so their
> rules and my rules do not match.
Again I agree.
Not responding to a breach of rules or to a personal attack not is not
merely against the grain for most people psychologically, most of us I
think are familiar enough with the simple notion that "mud sticks" or the
debating principle that any unrefuted argument however specious that
is not refuted may be accepted by the audience.
There are also quite a few of us here who are familiar with the
efficacy of tit for tat.
Knowing that lists are about readers (audiences) and that there are
ramifications in letting abuses slip by I think it is important to have
another option than non response which can be misinterpreted by
readers of the list. This was my point in the previous post in this
thread.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 03:54:21 MDT