Posted by Dr. Bob on February 5, 2007, at 20:04:00
In reply to Re: a mandatory civility buddy » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on February 4, 2007, at 22:30:49
> I'd be very uncomfortable with being in the role of blocking a "civility buddy's" posts-- or at least forcing them, on pain of my also being blocked, to change what they wrote.
I agree, it might feel like a difficult position to be in, and people might not volunteer for that reason. So if no one does, someone who's blocked shouldn't necessarily take it personally...
> There also is a role for spontaneity and the safety valve of blowing off steam and seeing if you get blocked. ... you have the right to say something angry or unkind
Well, people have that right until they're blocked. Your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
> it would have to be a person you felt the potential for a beneficial and instructive time.
>
> Maybe it should be random-- or people should pair off with people they have trouble with. ... I think it would be interesting to try to have a productive relationship with someone whom I intuitively respond to in a negative way. At least I feel I might learn a lot-
>
> HonoreIt definitely could be a learning opportunity, that's a really positive way of looking at it. But I think it would work better if both people agreed...
--
> At any given time, how many people are blocked?
>
> MidnightBlueGood question, I don't know. How many do you think?
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:596575
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/730160.html