<font color=red>an apology to uncle frank and all the people who took exception, or offense to my post last night.</font>
i want to apologize for the harsh wording of my public post to uncle frank about the appearance of the porch on thursday night. when i compared the look of the porch to a crime scene my choice of simile was an overblown exaggeration. i'm sorry i did that. it was emotionally inciteful and detracted from the point i was trying to make.
because of that poor choice of words and probably several other deficiencies in my communication, many of you appear to have thought i was in disagreement with the individual and group goal to have bonnuss_in_austin's privilege of posting on the thread revoked or to drive her away.
i completely agree that bia abused her privilege of posting on the thread and i completely agree that she should have that privilege suspended. i was one of the first posters on wednesday to tell her that she was out of line. i told her to stop dissing uncle frank and to go to her room until she was asked to return.
if anyone thinks that i disagreed with what they might have posted to bonnuss on wednesday night, let me say that that is NOT the case. i did not read the thread's posts to her nor her replies on wednesday night so i have no comments or opinions on what was said in them. because of an ugly encounter with a broken washing machine that consumed my attention for the entire evening, and perhaps a bit of personal distaste for delivering punishment (even when it appears to be well deserved) i did not continue to participate in wednesday evening's group statements to bonnuss.
i suggested privately to uncle frank, since he created this thread, that he make it a moderated thread so that it would be possible for us to deny posting privileges to anyone who abuses that privilege by making rude personal remarks and bringing in an obvious agenda to disrupt the spirit of the thread. uncle frank was opposed to that suggestion and there may be many others who, for various reasons, would also oppose it.
either means, whether officially moderated or unofficially moderated by group voice is an infringement of free speech. i don't have the slightest problem with denying "rude" free speech on this board. i am all for it!
my opinion, like uncle frank's and like the majority of posters on this thread, is that we should have the right and also the means to boot out offenders when rudeness is used to disrupt the harmony we have all worked so hard to develop on this thread. my ONLY disagreement with uncle frank in this matter is the means that we choose to do the booting. it's my opinion that a simple mouse click to suspend posting privileges of violators of the rules is preferable, less painful and less disruptive for all involved than the alternative which involves a group attack or "food fight". the group attack can fuel hatred and be hurtful to more than just the offender. it also subjects the posters to continual rude verbal assualt by the offender until such time that it achieves the desired effect of either running off the offender or getting the offender booted by SI administration. sometimes it will not work at all.
again, i apologize for my post that did not clearly explain my concern.
i hope this better clarifies my opinion and the reasoning behind it. i hold no ill feeling for anyone who disagrees with this opinion and i am completely open to hearing opposing views.
there is something else that i did not address. i now realize that thinking about it may have stirred some emotion that made me communicate poorly with uncle frank in my post...
i think it is admirable to state up-front what the rules of conduct are for posting participation. by reading those rules, a participant can be aware of the extent of restriction placed on all participant's posts and can judge whether this may bias or over-restrict information that is posted.
i also think it is admirable to state up-front what the purpose and intent of the thread is so a participant can be aware of how that purpose may bias posts about particular companies. for example, if a thread header were to state that it's purpose is to allow MSFT stockholders to discuss developments about microsoft, i would expect most posts to be influenced by the desire for success and profitability for the company and it's shareholders. if a thread states, "if you are not a friend of jay leno, you are on the wrong thread." then i will likely not participate because i have never met jay leno and i will expect (perhaps wrongly) that most posts will be pro-leno and that any disagreements with jay leno's opinions or those of his "friends" might be frowned upon.
reading a similar statement in our "new thread header" makes me wonder whether i would ever have posted on this thread if it said that nine months ago. there might be a better way to word the "new thread header".
red's here and we're going to go get dealie at the airport. i suppose that is my cue to shut up now.
hope everyone here has as nice a weekend as i'm going to have.
love,
-polvie
no time to proof or spellcheck, please excuse. |
