I thought there had been a thread similar to this one elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. If there is, I'm sure Jaime will close this one down and re-direct us.

This is in response to a point Basheva raised in the Clinton, Nixon, Reagan thread. I made reference to the Pathological-Liar-in-Chief thread which prompted this response:

Fair enough, I suppose. I agree to the extent that I don't believe individual participants (Basheva, Wertz, whoever) should be attacked or that blanket generalizations should be made about groups (women, Republicans, whoever), but I feel that public figures from any arena are fair game (Bill Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Linda Tripp, Rush Limbaugh, Noam Chomsky, whoever). Generally, I try to avoid being too abusive even of public figures without either having something to back up my statements or, at least, a modicum of humor. When it comes to the Bushes George, for example, I will sometimes distinguish between them by using Poppy and Dubya - the nicknames they use themselves. When I use something like "Bush the Lesser", I feel it serves a couple of purposes: it let's the reader know to which Bush I'm referring, it indicates that I feel that George W Bush is not as worthy as George HW Bush, and it injects a wee bit of humor without being as crass as, say, "Dumbya". I find it at least as harmless as "Slick Willy" or "Al Bore" - and somewhat more clever. Skipping posts which use such epithets is, obviously, your option.

The same is true with thread titles. "Pathological-Liar-in-Chief", for example, arose from a discussion of Bil Clionton which contained the following exchange:

Darcaine: I actually did not like Bill Clinton...ever. The man looked like a liar, sounded like a liar...and guese what he was a liar.

Danya: You just described Bush as far as I'm concerned.

Darcaine: Can you quantify why you think Bush is a liar? Clinton was pretty easy.

As I linked to the "Liar-in-Chief" thread from that exchange (and as I was getting really, really, really tired of both Clinton and Gore being labeled liars, while Bush II, the worst liar of the three, kept getting a free ride), I felt that the title was reasonable enough - and far more succinct than "Thread Quantifying Why I, For One, Think George W Bush Is as Big a Liar as Bill Clinton (or Al Gore)". Again - and this may just be my sense of humor - I felt "Pathological-Liar-in-Chief" (sub-titled "the flaming trousers of george w bush") was a bit more clever than "Dumbya Is a Goddamned Liar, Too". If you do ever read the thread, you will also find that a reasonable case could be made for the title of that thread being absolutely, clinically accurate.

The same is probably true for people who describe Bush as a "moron" or Hillary Clinton as a "bitch". They probably feel that a reasonably convincing case could be made for employing either epithet (except I'm not sure if "bitch" counts as swearing here or not - which means I may just have broken the rules). I don't necessarily agree with either characterization, but feel it is the right of others here to draw their own conclusions.


To the rest of the board: Do you feel that "defamation" of public figures in postings here is okay? Should the "personal attack" rule apply to Senators, film stars, writers, and Supreme Court Justices as well as participants here? So far as I can tell, this is not covered in the rules. I personally don't feel it should be - so long as the "attacks" do not get out of hand, are not unduly inflammatory, and are not demonstrably untrue. I would say the same for topic titles.

Agreement? Dissent?

I think we should stay away from defamatory comments. Anyone who disagrees with this has their head up their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Wertz, if there was a problem with Pathological-Liar-In-Cheif thread, I'm SURE jaime would have let you know by now

Though I virtually never admit it, i do respect all people in public office. It must be one of the hardest jobs in the world. All they probably ever hear is critisizm. So, personally, I try NOT to just blatenly call someone names, especially if I can't back it up.

Though being in a public office does set you up for a certain amount of ridicule, I would like to think that we're all above childish name calling. Except in humor and good fun.

--cheers

I'm innocent I tell you. Innocent.

I guess one of my objections is when a thread has an obviously pre-conceived intent of denigrating the person being discussed. I like to see discussion - an exchange of viewpoint - opinion - facts - experience - done with the intent to inform rather than anger. It is an opportunity for me to try to inform you of some facts as I see them, but also to listen to your facts. There is a better chance for an exchange of views, if I haven't angered the person to whom I am speaking.

Sometimes I imagine this to be a coffee shop - or all sitting around my kitchen (I make killer chocolate chip cookies, by the way) and we are discussing. Being on line is no different, in my view. Things I wouldn't say to your face, I won't say on line. Anonymity is not a license, as I see it.

Also, I assume that whatever I say will not alter the strongly held views of another person. I am simply sharing how and why I feel the way I do, without trying to change your mind. I doubt many people change their entire viewpoint based on a posting board. Maybe, a tweak here or there - but I don't think anyone will change voter registration based solely on it. And name calling surely won't do it.

That's what makes this board different from the usual juvenile flinging about of four letter based descriptive words - which doesn't inform at all.

If one thinks that President Bush is a moron, I would rather see the reasoning behind that opinion than the simple name calling. Public officials are fair game, I suppose, but I see such name calling as more diminishing to the name caller than the name callee (is there such a word? Well, there is now )

So, generally if I see a thread that has, what is in my opinion (and this is very subjective), an inflammatory cast to it such as the one about "pathological liar," then I assume I am going to see several people simply saying:

YES, HE IS!

NO, HE'S NOT!

YES!

NO!

Just as we judge each other (and we do to some extent) by the character of our posts, our ability to put thoughts together, yes, even to an extent spelling and grammar (exceptions for those for whom English is a second language), we each make judgements as to what is simply not worth the angst. And a thread with a preset inflammatory agenda is not one that attracts me - the title says to me - there is no real interest in a contrary view.

As for humor - always and often

Here's to ya.....

Oh for heaven sakes! What a lot of palaver about nothing!

Go for it Wertz

Madtown

Basheva,

It's refreshing to see an outlook like yours. I think some of us become jaded. It's good to have a reminder like you posted above.

I agree to a certain extent - but only to a certain extent. I don't believe that the only alternative to informing as enraging. I believe that, in addition to reasoned and friendly discourse, there is a place in this sort of debate for passion and provocation. I have had my mind changed as a result of online discussion - and as often through rebuttal to a heated rant as through sedate, empirical argument. It is often the fervor with which someone expresses themselves that draws attention to the beliefs which fuel the engine of their convictions. And such fervor is not always couched in the language of the kaffee klatch. In fact, I'm probably more likely to repond to a thread like "I Think One of Your Heroes is Full of Compost" than a thread like "Okay, So-and-So Has Some Valid Positions, But Here's Where We Might Disagree Somewhat". While one frequently catches more flies with honey than vinegar, sometimes the swatter is the most effective way of making a point and eliciting a response, if not changing a mind.



I agree entirely with this, but I tend to be pretty upfront with my opinions face to face, as well. I frequently have lunch with about a dozen colleagues and current issues are discussed with some frequency. The range of opinion falls into the predictable slots: vocal left, vocal (if somewhat louder) right, and relatively quiet center. We've taken to identifying ourselves, respectively, as "the communists, the fascists, and the cowards" - and the moderation stops there. This might give you some idea of my notion of polite conversation - which is not to say that the exchange of information is in any way diminished.



I agree yet again. However, to present the reasoning behind the opinion, one must first post the premise. By your own admission, a thread entitled "Why Bush Is a Moron" would probably not entice you to discover the reasoning behind the opinion. It seems as though you might be proposing something of a Catch 22: the presumption of "Yes, he is" : "No, he's not" discussion does not allow for discussion at all. I respect your avoidance of threads which you suspect might be little more than a glorified flame war, but I'd recommend judging a book by at least its first paragraph rather than just the cover. Then again, knowing the author always helps, as well - and, by this time, I'm sure you're starting to come to your own critical conclusions about some of the regular participants here.


Also agreed. Then again, one man's killer chocolate chip cookie is another man's poison, as they say.



Sounds good to me.

I guess what we are talking about is a difference in style. While I do agree (as a writer and reader) that one should not judge a book by its cover, I think in fact we all do to an extent. If I have a certain amount of time, I will chose something that attracts me, and anger doesn't attract me. A thread title with a pre-conceived conclusion doesn't attract me.

I come from a strange world. There is a history in ballet of teaching (imparting information) by way of threat, blandishment and coercion. It's probably a relic of the original students (at least in Russia) being serfs. But the tradition persists. If the leg isn't high enough - swat it. (That's easier than teaching the student how to accomplish a higher leg.) If the student isn't good enough - browbeat them. I watched this for 35 years. When it came my turn to teach I determined this was not the method with which I wanted to be a part. Surely there had to be another way.

Besides, it's just not me. Ballet dancers are nothing if not passionate about what they do but passion can be imparted without browbeating.


So, styles differ. And I respect yours.