Miles O'Neal writes: > Finally, she wasn't rude, brutal, vicious, > inflammatory, vile, or nasty, so where's > the beef? In the interest of flogging a dead horse I must disagree. You are almost right. She was not brutal, vicious, vile or nasty. She was rude and judging by the number of people who reacted she was also inflamatory. People don't tend to be inflamed by non inflamatory posts. The point is that this is a civil list. We are not generally inflicted by people who go outside the bounds. There have not been an excessive number of people who send inappropriate unsubsubscribe requests. In fact Amy's post was one of the least civil I have read on this list and I think therein lies the key to the reaction. A civil list should be able to handle the Terrence Brannon's of the world in a cival manner. When the occasional violator does show up the appropriate response should be kept private. Public flagellation is only appropriate for flagrant abuse, particularly where an example to other potential violators may be appropriate. It is humilating to the violator, who posssibly deserves it, and annoying to the normal peacable lurker who definitely does not. Any private battles Amy wishes to have with Terrence are her business. She has a perfect right to be irritated, to make her own judgement of whether Terrence's post was appropriate. It is only when she inflicts these battles on the rest of us that she crosses the line. Uncivil behavior on the list is all of our business. Final note: now that you have branded me (and others,) in public, as equivalent to a 'silly J. Random on a "goober pea lovers" list' who is not 'a rational being, a thoughtful being' I think we have an issue that should be discussed by our seconds. Amy only annoyed the list; you offer insult. There is NOTHING more important to a civil society than civil behavior. Giving insult is not civil behavior.
