<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">I'm happy to agree with your sentiments Rony, but it's still a fact that the bullying tactics sometimes used intimidate some people and do nothing to encourage open debate... so the bullying tactics occasionally used *are* a form of censorship in themselves.<br><br>David<br><div><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: "KovenRonald@aol.com" <KovenRonald@aol.com><br>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>Sent: Saturday, 24 November, 2007 11:19:24 PM<br>Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)<br><br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2">Dear All --<br>
<br>
The problem with proposals to "moderate" rudeness is that they are a form of censorship.<br>
<br>
If there are persons who choose to be rude or offensive, they should be free to do so. Some of the reactions dubbing statements "ad hominem" are overly sensitive. And sometimes rude or offensive comments may in fact be justifiable.<br>
<br>
Those who make excessive comments are more or less automatically punished by having their views disqualified in the minds of large numbers.<br>
<br>
Calling for courteous discourse is fine. Choosing to ignore discourteous comments is fine, too. But one person's lack of politesses may be another's justified anger.<br>
<br>
"Ad hominem" attacks may be unpleasant, but knowing who it is who is saying what is not irrelevant. Jean-Paul Sartre once said that one should judge any statement in the light of "</font><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2"><i>quel salaud l'a fait</i></font><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2">" -- "what bastard made it."<br>
<br>
As for defining "rudeness," I think any definition is bound to be open to criticism. It seems to me that it's more like the comment of a US Supreme Court justice who once said, speaking of "pornography," "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."<br>
<br>
I think </font><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2"><i>les salauds </i></font><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2">should be allowed to be </font><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2"><i>salauds </i></font><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2">if that's what they want to be. The advantage is that by behaving that way they show themselves up for what they are, instead of hiding behind a screen of false politesse. <br>
<br>
If that position is liberalism run amok, so be it -- make the most of it.<br>
<br>
Bests, Rony Koven</font><font family="SANSSERIF" color="#000000" face="Geneva" size="2"></font><br><br><br>**************************************<br>Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products.<br><span>(<a target="_blank" href="http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001">http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001</a>)</span></font></div><br></div></div></div><br>
<hr size=1>
Make the switch to the world's best email. <a href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/default_all/mail/spankey/*http://au.yahoo.com/worldsbestmail/spankey/" target=_blank>Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now</a>.
</body></html>