Quote:
Originally posted by umpyre007
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Just for FURTHER clarification -
Saying "Joe, you are an idiot" is obviously a flame.
Saying "Joe, all your ideas are idiotic" is equally a flame.
Saying "Joe, that's an idiotic idea" is, IMHO, not a flame.
What is absent in the third example is any sort of personal pronoun. As soon as someone says "you" or "your", whatever follows MUST be personal.
|
A pronoun may be absent but there ARE those that would disagree with you about example number three as they perceive that they may be "guilty by association" or possibly insinuation. This may not be a flame in your view but it might NOT be very nice in another person's view. Would it not be better to abstain completely from such potentially perceived innuendo?
|
Look, ump, I understand the point you are making; I really do. OTOH, if we intend to moderate these discussions down to the lowest common denominator, the person for whom almost everything is a personal affront, then there simply won't BE any discussions going on at all. I am well able to ADMIT, even in a public forum such as this, that some of my ideas have at times been justifiably called "idiotic", at least from that poster's perspective. I take no personal offense at that suggestion, provided the poster also states their reasons for that opinion. I don't see why anyone else should either.
If someone simply says "That's an idiotic idea" and then offers no attempt at justification, I can agree with your analysis. That isn't a point for discussion - it's intended instead as a true "discussion ender". However, if that same poster were to add.."because, IMO, this is true and not that" NOW we have a reasonable basis for further discussion, and no sign of either a personal attack or a discussion-ending pronouncement, whether directly or by "association", "insinuation" or implication. I would hope that I always adopt the latter approach rather than the former.
It is also relevant how often you use a given descriptive adjective in relation to a particular poster's ideas or posts. If every time our poster Joe said something I came back with "Joe, that's another idiotic idea because of this or that", I could be accused of unfairly judging the bulk of Joe's posts. No-one is wrong ALL the time (not even ME)!
I don't know HOW we can exclude that without pouring over every post and every sentence in every post. The moderator has already indicated that is not possible. No matter what you or I agree on as right and proper, someone else will always find something outside those parameters that is either offensive or unnecessarily restrictive. The best defense is to let the impartial arbiter, the board moderator, decide whether the repeat offender is conducting some kind of negative campaign or not, and so deal with it in his own way.
Can you see my point here, ump?
Cheers,