QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
>
> Last year there was a petty, immature battle going on -- about a topic:
> boring to some, if not all. Today it is called "violence" last year it was
> called "gun control." It is not a new topic on this forum.. It revolves
> around. um ... how can I put this delicately? ... Eh ... some guy with a low
> impulse control ... and ... um... a rampant member of the NRA ... on whether
> or not gun control is a constitutional violation.
Actually, I was not a member of the NRA until this year (I recieved the membership as a christmas gift), I've never been to a meeting or otherwise involved in it.
>
> An emotional topic on many different levels. Both of them raised good points.
> However, it got ugly. And the two posters posted *way* too many times a day,
> usually short, profane insults ping-ponged by ego-bashing 'egging ons'. Back
> and Forth it slung...
I don't know if you are talking about that prior time or this time. I certainly know that I did not initiate any personal attacks (though I did childishly reply to some), nor did I use profanity.
>
> Instead of the list arbitrator brandishing warnings (that I know about) or
> filtering (by banning) the individuals who perpetuated this emotionally odd
> behavior, or allowing the list members to come down hard on those two
> individuals themselves, Greg Burch and/or Eugene Leitel were called upon to
> stop it (by banning) -- the topic of guns.
>
> I left the list, saying I would not be a part of any list that censored. I
> received a post from one key person who seemed concerned about this
> accusation, implying that I was accusing the list of illegal censorship, and
> asking me if I was going to call the police, but that wasn't my point ..
> nothing wrong with list policies.. free to do what you will with your own
> list... just see ya later alligater...
My personal take is that people who went beyond rudeness to profanity and personal insults first were the instigators of the degradation of the list. In my opinion (obviously biased), after one particular individual was bumped, the list improved quite a bit.
>
> What I *do* believe is that reasonable discourse about any topic is
> appropriate among people who carry a "limitless" philosophy, for one cannot
> know *where* inspiration comes from and must allow one's self to see all
> things -- & -- it is behavior (not topics) -- that must be censored.
>
> It's stylistic.
>
> Dealing with it otherwise is sideways, not to the point, and ineffective. A
> cop out.
>
> upon my return, i see, that not only was my choice correct, still is, but
> also that it was *indeed* highly ineffective to ban by topic.... The subject
> line 'guns' has now been changed to 'violence,' but the list behavior
> continues.... sigh...
Actually, the topic was banned for one month, and violators were bumped.