[IMC-Process] Re: [New-imc] Re: PROPOSAL chuck on approvallist DEADLINE Wed 8 Jan 2003 17:00 GMT

[anarch3m]

Yes...catching up...after such soul feeding activism these last days  .This seems like the hounds, having a first taste of blood in the air, then biting any and all.  Bloodlust.

Which brings me to the second point.  In response to Changsing, (in the edited forward below) --"i don't really think that "abusive language" is a consistent argument to ban someone. you can be very abusive even without using foul words."

I would say abusive even with very sweet or kind words.

 
But mostly I would say that foul is more forgivable than abusive.  It might not be at a person, might not be emotionally charged for the user.

Abuse is abuse. Abuse is violence.  

Abuse is inconsistent with unity, with dignity, with why I am here.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:50:26   
 Sheri Herndon wrote:
>hi everyone,
>
>i am catching up.
>
>i am personally against this proposal and don't feel that this whole 
>proposal or discussion has been in the best interest of our time or 
>our work. 
>can we get back on track?
>clarification of our "policies" seems in order and perhaps then 
>documenting them in a very accessible spot:
>
>*  have we ever come up with a policy about blocking 

>what is our "decision-making agreement" for this list 

>*  banning people policy.  do we have one?
>
>*  cross-posting policy.  

>are we not all in this together?  even with our differences?  

>my two cents
>sheri
>

>At 12:34 AM +0100 1/6/03, changsing wrote:
>>yeah! how bright!
>>banning someone for proposing an issue-based imc!
>>you must be kidding, i can't really believe you're being serious 
>>with this proposal.
>>just in case you are, i disagree.
>>and if that's not enough to make you change your mind, i block your 
>>proposal,

 we couldn't come up with a solution (banning him).

>>- chuck made a proposal, and was then attacked by andy rice. andy 
>>rice was the one starting the flame.

>>- i didn't know we had a policy stating that people who refuse to 
>>apologise are to be banned

>>- i don't really think that "abusive language" is a consistent 
>>argument to ban someone. you can be very abusive even without using 
>>foul words.

 if someone starts a discussion on the wrong list (which happens daily, i'd say), we ban him?

waste your time with such harmful and pointless 
>>proposals. please, get serious.
>>changsing



_____________________________________________________________
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus