Posted by alexandra_k on June 14, 2005, at 18:16:36
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on June 14, 2005, at 17:57:55
> -- I guess I am confused then, because when there is a reply to a post by a particular person, without checking off the "add name of previous poster", and the post contains a reply that is clearly in response to what is contained in the post of the person who has issued a "DNP" request, how is that not responding to a person who has asked that they no longer be posted to.
From the FAQ:
>Posting to someone means directing either the subject line or the body of a post to them. Replying to posts by someone isn't necessarily posting to them.If I said:
'Poster A, I think that...' in the body of the post then I figured that would count as directing the body of a post to them.I posted comments that were intended for the benefit of other readers following the thread.
IMO the 'do not post to me' request is fairly worthless except for preventing personal attacks directed to you. When personal attacks aren't the problem, I don't see how the request helps. And in the case of personal attacks the rest of the civility rules come into play anyway... Maybe the benefit is that it should be easier to refrain from reading the posts of someone you aren't getting on with if they aren't directing the subject header to you.
>It is a circumvention of the civility rules
I didn't see it as a circumvention. Really. I thought it was ok.
> Larry was the subject of a particular post, and, in a fair and just society, he should have been given the opportunity to address the things that were being said.
He could have told the general reader what he thought about what was being said. He just couldn't adress those general comments to Emmy.
And this is at least the second time after the DNP request that Emmy has had to say 'Hey! Don't post to me!'.
I have to say... I do see where Emmy is coming from with respect to the DNP request. What I find most puzzling is the DNP request and the blow-up in the first place.
> It certainly is not a "crucial" difference. It is a circumvention, plain and simple.
If I was circumventing then I agree there would not be a crucial difference. I didn't think I was circumventing though, and if I wasn't then I think it would constitute a crucial difference.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:511407
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050614/msgs/512728.html