[From Fred Nickols (2004.09.25.11:52 ET)] --
Unless I've missed something, there is a proposal on the floor pertaining to
conditions of participation on this list; namely, that participants will not
use foul language or launch personal attacks.
If I've got that right, consider them accepted on my part.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
[From Bikll Powers (2004.09.25.2002 MDT)]
Fred Nickols (2004.09.25.11:52 ET) --
Unless I've missed something, there is a proposal on the floor pertaining to
conditions of participation on this list; namely, that participants will not
use foul language or launch personal attacks.If I've got that right, consider them accepted on my part.
I'll piggyback on this to add my vote for this proposition.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Fred Nickols (2004.09.26.1127 ET)] --
Rick Marken (2004.09.25.0840)]
> Bruce Nevin (2004.09.25 10:54 EDT)
>
> Reference: Bruce Abbott (2004.09.18.1030 EST)OK. Here's Bruce A.'s basic proposals:
> 1. No personal attacks on others.
>
> 2. No foul or obscene language.I think these are fine. I'd rather go with principles than with rules.
Principles like "respect for others", "intellectual curiosity" and
"scientific integrity" would be enough for me.
My experience with using principles as standards against which to govern
behavior is that they leave a lot of room for interpretation. Rules tend to
be less open to interpretation. Assuming we all understood "respect for
others" to mean the same thing in all situations there would be no problem
with using that principle. Unfortunately, I suspect there's a lot of
variation - not just in what fits or doesn't fit - but also regarding the
conditions under which the principle applies and those under which it might
not apply or might be temporarily lifted. If you attack me, for instance, I
might feel perfectly justified in counter-attacking, despite my principle of
"respect for others" (which, as my example illustrates, could have a
contingent aspect to it; namely, as long as I'm not attacked).
Anyway, now that I've signed on so to speak, what are the sanctions
associated with breaching the agreement? I would think they grow
progressively stiffer:
1. warning
2. suspension
3. banishment
or something like that. I probably missed the sanctions discussion.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us