🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21205323@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.183010.22929@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
|> (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
|> 
|>    >and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
|>    >argument, and not simply abusive language.
|> 
|>   I haven't noticed Voltaire saying anything about Grossman. But you are
|> a bit hasty, surely, in speaking of his "right to be met by proper
|> argument". Why do suppose that we have a right to be met by "proper
|> argument" (whatever this term may mean to you), whatever abusive twaddle
|> we spout on the net ourselves?

I think it is important first to show that the guy is spreading
"abusive twaddle" on the net, however obvious it may seem to one-
self, regardless of person, for two reasons:

1. We're showing the guy exactly what he is doing, which is
   a stronger corrective than mere shouting and swearing. He
   thereby gets a chance to improve himself, instead of perhaps
   being just ignorant about what he's doing.

2. It _might_ have been misunderstood, and gives the guy a chance
   to defend himself. If he cannot defend his actions without
   further abusive twaddle, we have positively shown him what he
   has done.

In any case, the outcome is better than immediate fight.

I do agree, however, that if the person in question ignore the
good attempts and/or go on like before, then he might be told
what your gut feelings towards him are. But first telling a
person what he is actually doing wrong might save the newsgroup
from a lot of flaming, and will therefore be in our own best
interests.


Solan