Posted by mair on December 1, 2003, at 16:59:22
In reply to Re: Getting back on track, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 9:43:02
I acknowledge that intent is hard to prove. If memory serves, you've been criticized in the past for issuing sanctions for posts which most found uncivil only if viewed in a void and not in the actual context. However, what I think Phil was talking about are those posts which are so blatantly offensive and really without a particular context which might explain them in any acceptable way. I don't think there are a lot of these and I don't think it's difficult to distinguish them from all the other objectionable posts which fall into the gray area of discretion. Why should those remain, and what is the point of issuing a PBC to a person who has posted such material? What if someone used the subject line to insult another poster in a graphically offensive way? Would those to only merit a PBC?
I can see no reason why a post, such as the one on bestiality should remain. However, of more importance to me is that such posts not receive the same treatment as all of the other more marginally uncivil posts which really are at least addressing some subject at hand. Otherwise, this forum isn't so different from shock radio, where it seems to be ok to say anything at all as long as it's only said once.
FWIW, I also take some issue with the PBC you issued to Phil. When I was in middle school, I made a fairly earnest attempt one day to have a more than peremptory conversation with my father. After listening to me try to explain something of importance, his only response was to point out to me how many times I used the word "uh." I felt pretty deflated and my guess is that Phil's reaction to the response he got was much the same. I thought his response was restrained. If you didn't see fit to issue a PBC for the response to Phil's post, I don't think you should have issued one to him either.
Mair
poster:mair
thread:282363
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031120/msgs/285624.html