related links ›
(Page 1)
Good job. Necessary and helpful. Thanks for the concern and action!!! Brad Woodliff
Karina, I can do this without getting nasty...too bad others can not.
However, I just wanted to point out that 'violence' begets 'violence'.
The idea that someone, an American Citizen or otherwise, takes, makes or has a subjective view is what the war on terror is all about.
Fighting for those rights that separate us from the barbaric mentality of tyranny and oppression.
I blame BLOGs for setting a double standard and thinking that a debate can be peacefully ensued is wrong.
This is not a debate.
There is no RIGHT or WRONG answers.
You ask for opinions; you are going to get them...pretty or otherwise.
The world is not all covered with flowers and if a reader, subscriber or person of limited intelligence is offended, their option is to walk away.
The people in sectarian violence do not have that option.
People who have buried their sons and daughters from this war do not have the option to just 'walk away'.
My point is, that no matter how you would like every one to eat a peace of your rainbow flavored cake, you are going to have to bare the thorns that these type of issues and topics provoke.
And "provocation" is the point of a blog. You post; you solicit and you react, in text, to the issues and subjects.
Asking people to eat peace when you are throwing stones is in fact disrespectful for all who use the web.
Be it for peace, war, political, religious and or personal and social gains.
A chance to express themselves is the option, not the punishment.
Take them on one at a time and try to change their views and opinions. Many have tried and many are dying trying.
Sorry if this sparks antagonistic feelings...I am pro voice, and pro-web...not censorship.
Have a nice day
I agree very strongly with Guy. Every story I have felt compelled to make a statement on has been one that I hold dear to my heart. I have been attacked and called names without any real reason but I fail to follow the new popular Bush Bashing crowd. I don't like him and I don't hate him.
Many of the stories submitted are very much as Guy stated, there just because everyone knows it will become a lit powder keg. Just as it would be to go to a Jewish wedding and saying, we now have proof the holocaust never happened. People will become very angry, and for a very good reason. Our Nation is being manipulated horribly by 2 different political puppeteers.
If you don't want people to become passionate about what they hold dear to their hearts, submit stories about puppies or stingrays. Every political article is going to be insulting to someone, and believing it isn't, is extremely immature. See now there is an opinion, and of course, is going to ruffle some feathers. I am sorry, but pointing the finger at us and telling us that we are bad, isn't going to cut it.
Karina: I have avoided the blogs and threads on Netscape for just that reason, some people cannot discuss a topic logically without resorting to name calling and personal attacks. I disagree with Mr Battaglia's comment of "...that 'violence' begets 'violence'." I submit that while I agree with some of what he says in his post, that statement is an over simplification of the issue. While the War on Terror evokes strong feelings, as did the war in Vietnam, to use what is going on in Iraq as an excuse to advocate violence against another user or subject them to "flame" attacks, is wrong. I can listen to an opposing view point without getting overly upset, sometimes there is some truth in what the other person is saying, just as there are truths in what I have to say. Whether this war is "right" or "wrong" is not for us to decide, that decision won't be written for at least a generation after the war ends. Discuss it logically, present your facts in a logical, well thought out and well typed message, and let it go. Life is much too short to be angry at the world.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
James Walker
while I too do not condone personal attacks, one must be very careful in walking the censorship line, what is one persons dislikes is another persons reaqson for living.
Seems like every site that you go to is dealing with this issue. The question then becomes who is "God" to decide what constitutes an attack and what is just plain ol censorship of something we don't want to hear because it is not what we personally believe.
Being passionate about a topic is differs vastly from reviling those whose opinions are at odds with ones own. There is nothing wrong or evil with being a liberal, or with being a conservative. Both Republicans and Democrats pay taxes and vote. They are entitled to participate in this society on an equal basis. Whether or not their views prevail rests with the voting public. Name calling, and ad hominum attacks merely indicate an intellectual poverty in one who is too inarticulate to express a cogent opinion. It is perfectly legitimate to vigorously debate an issue, or to express an impassioned opinion about an issue. Calling someone a name, or using vulgar, insulting language to denigrate the person is unacceptable. For the reasons I just stated, I have refrained from entering into any conversations on Netscape for some time. I would like to see the climate change. If that happens, I would really enjoy participating in some of the discussions.
I do not like Bush--because he is a spoiled brat...never had to do a days work in his life, and has the elitist attitude toward the working class..I am also a lifelong democrat..and am glad that Clinton was not in office on 9-11...Of the two--Bush is more man...it is because the unions demanded a better living , and that is why we have an invasion of third world people..trying to live as the unions have provided,,,however, all the invasion does is supply scab labor, and drive the living standards down..That is what Bush, and big bussiness want..
Yo, Karina,
Up yours! (grin)
Can we get a definition of "hate" speesh?
You are a little late, But better late than never! It is a sad state to see such action would have to be taken, But we see this kind of action from folks in our art and press, we have lost something with how we treat each other in the USA, I do hope it changes soon, Left, Right, it is time to live and let live, In the old days everyone could see a little bit of good from each side, I happen to like the truth and the middle ground, give and take, When did any one last vote for a guy that could take both sides, and still stand tall and able to give and take all sides? In the end was able to do what was best and good for all, and everyone was a little bit happy? I hope for the day to return.
Although,luckily, I have not been called names except "prejudiced" once, I am extremely glad to read your new etiquette. This is supposed to be a civilized exercise within free speach and not bullying people to convert them to your ideas.
Good job, thank you!
Aloha From Hawaii,
This is absolutely the first time in six years I have seen someone take a stand against abusive language, personal attacks, threats, and individual bashing on a comment thread. I stopped posting anything on comment threads, as well participating in chat groups, or bulletin boards because of the abusive after-posts. I tried to be as objective as possible stating my view of a particular subject only to be picked apart needlessly by people hell-bent on venting their untreated anger issues.
Bravo to those of you who are conscientious enough to want free speech, argumentation, and debate without the personal attacks and other IMMATURE behavior. Bravo!
The principle problem with flaming posts is that they make it very difficult (for me, at least) to follow the thread of a discussion. I read the comments to gain depth on an issue: not depth on the personality of the commenters. Maybe we need the posters to present an honest emotion vs. analysis ranking. Eventually, this could become an "emotionality" rating for the poster over time. Then we could just set our tolerance level and be done with it.
Eventually, those that like to contribute flaming posts would simply find themselves filtered out - they'd become non-participants, because everybody would be ignoring them. It would be up to them to moderate their conduct to be admitted back into the community.
I guess that I'd like to preserve free speech (although I don't think that Netscape is a government institution: start your own news community?), but also to preserve the right for the thoughtful to be heard. Shouting somebody down is as much an infringement of their free speech as turning them off.
Many thanks Karina...I guess I can return to reading this stuff. It's sad how many folks value their opinion so highly they venture beyond the realm of education. When fact is trumped by name calling, one need not bother respond...only shake their head in disbelief and wonder how many folks have nothing better to do with their time!
1:12PMJason
Thank you for taking the time to write this Karina.
I agree 100% with the zero tolerance policy on abusive comments and sitemail. This is our community and we set the standards. If folks want to engage in abusive comments they can start their own social news site or message board.