Thank you. I think this will immensely help the discussion and focus it on the
issues instead of on personalities. I think I may have been guilty myself in my
reply to one of the posts that insulted me. I responded by calling the writer
"dumb". I could easily change that if you think it necessary, or you may
consider it just tit for tat, which will not be repeated.
> To the list:
> I have belatedly realized that I have sent postings to the list which
> included disparaging remarks about David Horowitz personally. My apologies
> to Mr. Horowitz. This was an oversight that will not be repeated. I do not
> intend for this list to become a flame war between members. I reiterate
> below the relevant portion of the Sixties-L welcome message.
> 5.The [rejected] post contained potentially offensive racist or sexist
> insults, or contained abusive language, or personal attacks
> (flaming) of other listmembers. (We understand that this rule
> will itself be controversial. What is and is not offensive is
> necessarily subjective. But in a volatile atmosphere, we prefer
> to err on the side of caution and to insist that posting
> members preserve an atmosphere of civility and reserve their
> attacks for others' arguments rather than their characters.)
> If the above is not clear, here's my personal feelings on the subject:
> I'm very liberal when it comes to tolerating IDEAS, but not
> tolerant in accepting personal attacks on particular persons who
> express their ideas on the list.
> I will still allow all posts in those areas about any ideas. Unlike
> much of the world of modern political correctness and speech policing,
> I tend to hold a very libertarian view which believes the best way to deal
> with false ideas is to give good reasons why they are false, rather than
> suppressing their expression. That policy applies, for me, to professions
> of ideas and claims of truth.
> But, when it comes to the expression of disapproval of persons for
> having expressed an idea, that I will not accept and will much more
> forcefully enforce that rule, applying it to direct name calling including
> the indirect attacking of persons on the list. Attack ideas -- no problem.
> Leave list members alone.
> I'm sorry if this policy makes some unhappy. I fully believe in the
> open exchange of ideas, but believe that exchange needs to be carried
> out in an aura of civility and mutual respect even for those professing
> ideas we think are totally wrongheaded and even hideous. Just make
> a good argument to show the argument is a bad one and leave the person
> making the argument out of it. That's what I'm asking. More than
> asking, that's what I'm making a condition for posting on this list.
> the modr8r
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 23:06:59 CUT