RE: [ga] List Rules - Version 4

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1
 
Debbie


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Hugh Dierker
Sent: 02 August 2007 16:53
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules - Version 4


I think the problem here is that what we really want to nail down is the
intent of the poster. (and therefor the result)
Since we are not children here we have to make room for the occasional and
possibly in bad taste foul language. Actually very rare here and usually
humorous or to prove some other point or to shock into gaining attention.
 
So I think it would be fair to say; "not using what may be perceived as
clearly intended to be offensive and/or disruptive language."
 
Keeping in mind that someone has to complain. Also I think a monitor would
easily look at the track record and matters like name calling as opposed to
fact stating.
IE. "Eric is a thief" versus "Eric took that money and I do not think it
belonged to him".
 
Bottom line though is that we are guarding against language which does in
fact offend and disrupt. And that has to be sent to the monitor and then
possibly the chair, in which case, probably cooling off would take place and
we are all better for it.
 
But if someone is intentionally irritating and disrupting the list - she is
going to get the boot because this is not an exercise matt for free speech
abuse.
 
Eric


Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Hi Jeff

Responses in line:

> First and again, please trim/discontinue CC'ing already 
> subscribed GA list members as you yourself have mentioned 
> several times, as it is incredibly rude and a waste of band 
> width. This will be the 14th time I have trimmed them for 
> you. So again please practice what you preach.

Thank you for the reminder. It will take me a while to get used to the new
rules instead of just clicking reply all - a habit hard to break. :-)

> Second, about Version 4 of the Rule..
> 
> Rule:
> "not using what may be perceived as offensive or 
> inflammatory language"
> 
> ?: what is the definition of the terms "inflammatory 
> language" in context of these proposed set of rules?

> ...[original message trimmed]

> Therefore, and as such, I oppose this rule as currently stated...

Would you like to re-draft this particular paragraph or would the following
suffice?

---

- not using what may be perceived as offensive language

---

Best

Debbie









  _____  

Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48249/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_
mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz> for grads at Yahoo! Search.