Re: Moderations

Dave B.: Fortunately all of the participants backed away from the
attacks and the discussion cooled down and some mutual understanding
was achieved.

Johnny: As I recall, this has always been the case with Brad and I. My
objection was contained in the characterization that something was wrong with
our discussion. What I said had to be said, but you chose to bring this up as
a problem you said you wanted to pull.

This can be a serious matter. Should I roll over and follow somebody else's
narrative?

Johnny

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:38 PM, <Afmmjr@...> wrote:
> Dave B.: Fortunately all of the participants backed away from the
> attacks and the discussion cooled down and some mutual understanding
> was achieved.
>
> Johnny: As I recall, this has always been the case with Brad and I. My
> objection was contained in the characterization that something was wrong
> with our discussion. What I said had to be said, but you chose to bring
> this up as a problem you said you wanted to pull.
>
> This can be a serious matter. Should I roll over and follow somebody else's
> narrative?

Johnny,

Two points: I'd argue that in past times the mutual understanding
hasn't happened (if it has why do you keep forgetting it?) and that
the backing down has often occurred one round of posts after things
achieved flame status (i.e. the last posts before the back down have
been more ad hominem attack than reasoned discussion and it appeared
that the two of you were getting some delight in pushing each others'
hot buttons). But, since I don't know either of you personally, it's
possible I'm overreacting and viewing the argument as hotter than the
two of you view it.

Secondly, and I'll put this as clearly as I can because I haven't seen
an indication from you that my previous comments to this effect have
been understood, as a moderator, I don't want to be involved in
censoring the discussion and I don't think the list, with the possible
exception of Carl, wants us involved in censoring discussion. But IF
the list desires the moderators to become involved, and that is a very
big if, I would consider a thread where the personal attacks are
underway a bigger threat to list peace than a thread where the
discussion is still civil and act accordingly.

I understand your passion and only ask that you disagree without being
disagreeable.

David Bowen