|
RE: WC Ad Hom
|
Pete Karaiskos
|
Oct 20, 2006 16:18 PDT
|
Valerie Walsh wrote:
| |
Geeez, don't you guys have anything better to discuss? I'll tell you why
Dan got out his while admittedly small calibur, undoubtably humane and
environmentally friendly weapon-he's protecting his list and all of you
in the process-for which you should be thankful!!! -Val
|
Hi Val,
Yes, we are, of course, are discussing better things. This is
apparently related to something Diana posted several days ago and
arrived here today (or yesterday). I'm thankful that the discussions
don't end up in personal attacks over on the WC list... I don't know if
you remember the namecalling war I was having with MikeT on the AT list
- but it was kinda childish and an interesting test of free speech and
the limits of good taste (which I believe we exceeded).
So yes, I am appreciative of the No Ad Hom rule. I think my friend
Baandje didn't realize Frank was asking him for personal information at
the time - and didn't see the difference in two questions that were
worded the same but were interpreted differently (one broke the rule,
one didn't). I've been warned a few times for violating the ad hom rule
and so have other critics. I don't know if it is fairly applied, but I
like to think it is. I see a lot of people on both sides of the issues
getting warnings - and it tends to calm things down a bit when they do.
I'd much rather discuss the issues.
(BTW, I love my day-planner)...
Pete
|
|
 |
|
