CompuServe Messages

Bruce, >> Are you going away or do you intend to poke in daily… << Weekly is more likely, as for responding, I find it frequently takes a lot of thought to compose a coherent message, and its rather time consuming. My response to you recent comments is a good case in point. >>Anyone launching a personal attack on anyone else for any reason whatsoever will be banished from the kingdom forever. << So what about someone saying "Mexicans are lazy" and you happen to be Mexican and the other person knows is? And what about people replying with arrogant answers that make other people feel stupid? And for that matter anyone making anyone else feel belittled as I'm sure the thread heading KEVIN STOP IT did? What your suggestion implies is that there is only one sin, that of making a personal attack. In my experience personal attacks only sting when they're true. And there are many ways to define what constitutes a personal attack. I find it much more offensive when someone comes to the forum for an answer and through oversight, or because of an already self professed ignorance gets slammed for not knowing, or is answered in an arrogant manner. That I find very disturbing as it is contrary to the intent and purpose of this forum and has alienated alot more people. I don't have as clear a view of the solution as you, I think common sense and rational behaviour should be the order of the day, and that a tone can be set by the general populace which will encourage that kind of behaviour. I don't believe that either party in the recent spat was in the right, but I wouldn't banish them both for their offenses. And I wouldn't want to try to decide who was more wrong. Its not possible to know all the circumstances that led up to it, as there are factors which maybe outside the perview of the forum. What mind set one takes to the forum can be influenced by a lot of factors. I do agree that emotional thoughts should be put aside, I also agree the wires that guide our fingers on the keyboard should be connected to the rational portion of our brain. But I know from experience, that there have been times when I took more than a few moments to think (at least that's what I thought I was doing) of an appropriate response only to find that my thinking was clouded by my perception (not necessarily emotional) at the time. In time one can improve ones response to negative situations as well. Your solution does not provide for that potentiality, which right or wrong our justice system does. I think its interesting that many times solutions to problems are answered with clear cut answers. Unfortuneately the problems are often not as simple as the solutions would imply. We have 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment rights which people seem very willing to discard in order to maintain a convienent uniformity; life is not convienent, nor are the problems; and the solutions only become convienent, when we have a simple solution like chop off their heads, banish them from the kingdom, etc. etc. The implications are profound. Steven Hawkings would have been thrown over a cliff in ancient Sparta because physical defects were not allowed in that militaristic state. Course they probably could have cared less how the universe was formed. I use this analogy because I see no difference in it as compared to banishing someone for making personal attacks on the forum. Is it not possible that someone can learn what's appropriate and that they're contribution may be greater than this particular flaw in their social skills. Is it not also possible that there are many people out there who would contribute and not lurk if they felt comfortable that they could make mistakes without retribution. Or has it been pre-ordained that only the socially adept and the technically skilled need participate. Yes I suppose, for some that would be very convienent. I don't know you well enough to find a particularly appropriate example but for instance, if someone said to you "Americans work all the time and don't know how to live" and they themselves had a fair amount of inherited wealth from a foreign two class system, would you take it personally? I did, though it doesn't fall under your category of "personal attacks" in the most literal sense. And how would you respond? I responded that it is easy for someone with wealth unearned that has the leisure to "live it" to make a comment like that. That would be a personal attack, no? The point being that defining "personal attack" is as much in the intent as what is said; here we have no tone or inflection. This conversation could just have easily gone on between two people who were ribbing each other in a light hearted manner. Thanks for your response, BTW Happy New Year. <g> John