Good suggestion Pam. An Abuse Menu would be a good way to catagorize the abuse.

Anyway ... it is so good to hear from you again.

Sorry Neil. But I have to set the record straight. 30 day bans are not carried out as you have described. Neither are warnings or examples. We do have a global moderator and he does single handedly give out bans to those he wishes to. It happened to me after I asked him to delete a personal attack post and within minutes he get me off the forum. Single handedly.

Sorry I missed this aspect Pam. Good Point. The abusers do need their "just desserts". But posting their abuse would be a good start for them to learn and for us to learn what is expected on this forum.

This is not a place where MY ideas of good behavior is expected. My ideas are much different than Stans. This is Stan's place. HIS values are reflected here. The problem is ... I am just not sure what his values are. The idea of posting examples of what is considered over the line would allow us to better understand what many say is 'obvious' but what some appear to not know that it is 'obvious' because they don't see what they do as 'bad'.

Maybe you need an "Ombudsman" to represent you in dealings with the moderators.

That would be a thankless, and difficult job.

Then the Ombudsman would probably need a lawyer, etc. whew!

Oops, I went looking for an example of the direct diss – and an example, of sorts, found me. [/gulp]

Sorry, Neil. Apologies.

It was the collective, clique-claquish – ‘we’s gonna do this, and we’s gonna do that to y’all, if’n y’all don’t play nice’ – that put the burr under my saddle. Whose nice? What’s THAT!?

Mob mentality just absolutely

grinches me!

Again, sorry. Peace.

Good to see you posting

You always seem able to maximize the economy of words. You must be the par excellence to those who advocate

'less is more'.

I haven't that skill - so, just gave up - and let it rip :-(

I second that jasd. But I think you did an excellent job in the above post. But then when it comes to Pam ... there is no doubt about it. She has a great way of concisely saying the truth on matters.

I suspect it's not a workable idea, engaging as it is in the abstract, simply because one man's (and, sadly, it's almost always men) abuse is another man's 'straight truthtelling' or whatever. There is no universal standard for what counts as an abusive post, and everyone tends to be right in his own eyes (including me).

There's really no substitute for maturity, and for each of us being accountable to himself for what is posted. For thinking twice or three times, especially if we know we're taking on someone's cherished beliefs.

Neil, much as I agree with you on many things and enjoy your contribution, I have to say I disagree on the 'Ichy' thing. I have always maintained that respect breeds respect and vice versa. Even if it's sometimes the tough thing to do, modeling the behaviour you would like to see is always the right thing to do, and most times also the most effective thing.

This is sound advice. We do need to be careful about someone else's faith.

Yes, but when someone crosses the line ... it would be good to see the example. It would be very instructive.



We could make a list ... Gringo is in. Ichy is out. The 'D' word is in. It goes on and on. But what is offensive to one is not to another. The bottom line is that if it offends someone ... then it should be stopped and an apology made.

Ignorantly I called Ichabod ... Ich for short. I like Ichabod. I had no intentions of hurting him. But I did apologize to him and stopped the abbreviation.

Just don't ban "legalist"....I like it a lot, as you know.