Re: [sixties-l] apologies to Mr. Horowitz and list guidelines

From: David Horowitz (
Date: Mon Jun 12 2000 - 22:25:20 CUT

  • Next message: monkerud: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: The Black Panthers"

    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. wrote:

    > 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