[LINK] personal abuse

[Ivan Trundle]

On 13/06/2005, at 7:46 PM, Deus Ex Machina wrote:

> I am the one that cops most of the abuse. it is in fact pretty much
> constant. generally I delete it.

We ALL cop the abuse - and from both sides. Innocent bystanders on  
Link have to wade through it, often daily. No-one has a monopoly on  
this matter. Personally, if I was the focus of abuse, I'd stop and  
rethink how I try to communicate with others.

> but I am quite happy to not hurl abuse at people if people dont  
> abuse me.

I'd be much happier if no abuse was hurled by anyone. It negates any  
reasonable discussion. Link is being devalued by the introduction of  
personal abuse.

> Ill even appologise to people if they are prepared to appologise in  
> turn.

Sorry, Vic - but it would help to promote your cause if you ran your  
messages through a spell-checker, or if you chose to use a mail  
client that offers on-the-fly spell-checking. To be taken seriously,  
grammar and spelling are a positive advantage. It's not that your  
ideas aren't worth considering, but the value is severely diminished  
by poor communication. It would really help your cause.

> it is seem to be the practice by some of the participants
> case that if you cant attack the ideas, then attack the person.
> so if it makes you feel good to get all the agression of your chests
> then go right ahead.

Attack/Aggression has no place in e-mail communication, but  
especially in group communication. And it makes no-one else feel  
good. Even smart retorts (which focus on the individual) only diminsh  
any genuine debate.

> I dont stop people anyone from expressing their ideas. and I have
> every right to express my ideas.

I don't have the 'right' to abuse anyone. If expressing an idea  
involves projecting personal abuse, then this right should be revoked  
immediately.

Nonetheless, we might think that we have the right to express an  
idea, but equally others have a right to not listen. Such is the  
existential nature of e-lists. 'Right-ism' is unclear in an  
existential universe.

> if you want to censor me just because I have the balls to stand up
> against ideas that are worth standing up against, then go right ahead
> it will just stand as testimony to intolerance and narrow mindedness.

'Having balls' does not sanction the right to abuse others. But this  
aside, standing up for or against ideas is absolutely pointless if no- 
one will listen, regardless of the environment in which the ideas are  
expressed.

Equally, it does not follow that intolerance or narrow-mindedness is  
a product of actions that others might take to bring debate back to a  
point at which ideas and views can be expressed without resorting to  
personal abuse.

People will only listen if the messenger is persuasive, and can  
express an idea or vision with skill. And getting people to listen is  
only half the journey...

I've no interest in censoring anyone, but if taking action to stop  
individuals from abusing others and for causing communication on Link  
to descend to the level of irrelevancy is considered to be  
'censorship' by some, then so be it.

However, I'd rather that the tone of communication rose, instead, to  
the level at which I and others enjoyed participating (or simply  
observing) - which was not so long ago.


iT