Posted by TamaraJ on February 21, 2005, at 11:23:15
In reply to Re: LOL - I guess I should have re-read my post . . . » TamaraJ, posted by alexandra_k on February 20, 2005, at 21:05:31
> I hear you and I guess I agree, though I also think there could be exceptions. For example I have been warned (PBC'd) about posting to posters who have requested me not to post to them. This seems simple enough. I fully understand that I shouldn't have done that and I fully expect I'll get blocked should I do it again. Whether it happens today, tomorrow, or in two years I still expect I'd get a blocking.
-- Yes, I understand that. Where we run into difficulties with that scenario, IMO, is that it is human nature and instinctual to want/need to attempt to clear up any misunderstanding and/or apologize. It's not really a questin of who has the last word really or one trying to beleaguer the point. I think a subsequent post after a "Do not post to me" post, in most cases, is done in good faith and without malice. That, I think, needs to be taken into consideration. Of course, as I have seen done in some situations, the person could always post back to themselves to try to clear up the misunderstanding and extend an olive branch. Anyway, I guess I think, in some situations, all the evidence needs to be weighed, including a person's recognition of having crossed a line and their attempt to make amends.
> Same for swearing with the civility checker off.
-- But then, as you have pointed out in the past, some offensive words do not get picked up. I saw the word b*stard (with the "a" still in it) used in a post recently. There was no PCB. It's not offensive to me, but I was surprised that it did not get picked up by the checker (particularly when b*imbo does).
Oh well. Questions of civility and good social graces will always be a subject for debate (and even uncivil discourse at times I imagine).
Tamara
poster:TamaraJ
thread:458927
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/461260.html