Posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2004, at 0:12:12
In reply to Lou's reply to Noa-hltexcng » Noa, posted by Lou Pilder on December 1, 2004, at 21:05:27
I would have to say that for preference over yet another rule if someone finds something to be offensive, they just say so. People who read the thread will read the post and can then decide for themselves whether they wish to continue the thread, in what manner they wish to do so etc etc until the point at which Dr. B makes a determination.
I think that the intention of the writer is important and that their intentions should be taken into account in determining whether something is acceptable or civil or not.
That is why it can be useful to say 'I thought you were saying something like the following... and here is why I took offense from what I understood you to be saying'. That allows the poster to say - 'oh, yes, on that interpretation of what I was saying I do see how you might be offended by that and I am sorry'. And also the chance to say 'but that wasn't what I intended by what I said, rather I had such and such in mind'.
And then, after considering things from each others point of view, people could just kind of move on.
At least I fail to understand why things don't work that way at times. Perhaps it continues because one of the parties is unwilling or unable to see things from the others point of view.
I would say that the statement that caused offence in this case was intended to be a hyperbolic claim (or an overexaggeration for effect) about someones feelings of a situation on the board.
It wasn't meant to trivialise, rather it was meant to amplify or exaggerate for effect. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about this.
haven't quite learned to keep my mouth shut yet, but lets see (and let me take note) whether any trouble follows...
I do hope not.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:421736
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423212.html