Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site psc70.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!dartvax!psc70!tos
From: tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: jj doesn't wanna play anymore!
Message-ID: <132@psc70.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 16:49:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: psc70.132
Posted: Tue May 28 16:49:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 06:40:26 EDT
References: <3697@alice.UUCP>, <591@digi-g.UUCP>
Organization: Plymouth State College, Plymouth, NH
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.politics:9139 net.flame:10163


     The idea (as set forth by M. Leroy) that an opportunity for a
political discussion means one can say "anything [he] wants.." is
unfortunately revealing of serious misunderstanding of freeedom of
speech, of democracy, and of need for mutual trust and responsbility
for a democracy to function.
     In any serious discussion forum it is generally a very serious
breach of the rules to argue "ad hominem" -- i.e. to attack the person
rather than the person's ideas. In all of our legislative bodies this
is the reason that members are not even permitted to address one
another directly, but must address the chair.
     The sad fact is that a wonderful opportunity like this cannot
work for long unless the participants either develop a very thick
skin and ignore the violators of the necessary unwritten order; or a
moderator of some sort is willing to serve (time, energy?) and is
accepted as has already been discussed by others. Of course, in an
open meeting a moderator cannot function as an unseen censor... his
rulings can be appealed and overruled by the group, whereas in this
medium we would never know what items are being censored out as
"improper" contributions.
     Certainly it would help if those who seem to have a need to
attack the other person, rather than the ideas being set forth,
remember that this tactic invariably betrays the bankruptcy of the
arguments... one who has confidence in the seriousness and solid
ground for his or her arguments would not want to weaken them by
resorting to name calling, put-downs, or questioning the motives of
others.