Subject:
|
Re: human sexuality
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1702 times
|
| |
|
|
(I’m at a client, so it’s a hassle to switch identities, but I’m wearing my
Admin hat in this post)
This post is not just directed at Chris.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
Also, I want to take a moment to apologize. The claim that you get off on
harming people requires some clarification and I actually think that Larry
might well have censored me instead of you. (I mean, you were certainly
inappropriate, but self-defense even justifies murder, so I’d call it no
foul.)
|
To clarify. we did not censor anyone, nor did we wish to. LUGNET does not
practice censorship. I certainly think there are posts in this thread and other
recent ones that the authors ought to request cancellation of, in the interests
of harmony, and I certainly wish they would, but LUGNET does not force people to
cancel things.
We can restrict posting ability (either via a short timeout, or a restriction
from a certain group, or globally when it becomes clear that the poster can not
or will not abide by the ToS) but we do not censor.
However, I think you may have meant “censure”, which is a different word, with
the meaning to criticise or rebuke, or to express official disapproval. It
carrys a very harsh connotation, in my view, harsher than is warranted except in
repeat cases where people just will not listen to reasonable requests to tone it
down. I don’t think it applies here, I think the participants here, for the most
part, are usually reasonable and I think people are perhaps understandably
worked up to a tone they normally would not take. There has been a lot of
provocation on several sides.
Several LUGNET administrators have expressed disapproval of a number of the
posts in this thread and other threads because, in our view, they are
overstepping the bounds of polite discourse. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to
say that we censured anyone though, I think we’ve tried hard to be light in our
touch.
Perhaps you disagree, perhaps we failed. Perhaps singling out individual posters
wasn’t the right approach in a general climate of heightened tension. But I sort
of don’t want to get into a public discussion of how to give guidance, we’ve
been down that road before.
We understand this is a controversial set of topics and we understand that the
decisions taken about group formation could not possibly satisfy everyone no
matter what decision was actually taken. Nevertheless it would be greatly
appreciated if everyone could do their best to remain civil, to not deliberately
cast aspersions, or bait, or engage in ad hominem attacks.
So please do take that into consideration, everyone. Let’s just move on, and
resolve to be gentler going forward.
I’ve left the FUT set to just o-t.d but feel free to change it if you think
there’s merit in discussing this further, or have feedback on how we can better
serve the community in our administration and guidance.
Larry Pieniazek
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | human sexuality
|
| John, I know my views are in the minority. I'm not sure what made you think that I didn't know that. (How could I not?) That doesn't make them wrong. There have been a great many people through history who had unpopular ideas that are now widely (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
