What's up with this group lately?

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:50:59 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote in :

A lack of a response in this group does not always indicate an
acceptance
of a presented view.

Sure. But IMHO there are some views that should elicit a responce from a
majority of the group here in order to save its civility.

Flaming trolls tends to breed more trolls and flames.

It depends. When the group is invaded by a random outsider who makes a
provocative post, silence may indeed be appropriate. (For instance, the
Belfort ravings are universally ignored, and properly so.)

But when a bona fide member of the group advocates exterminating Muslims and
threatens to lynch them, it is unconscionable for people participating in
that conversation to let the remarks pass.

--Gary

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:39:14 -0500, "Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

... But when a bona fide member of the group advocates exterminating Muslims and
threatens to lynch them, it is unconscionable for people participating in
that conversation to let the remarks pass.

If you feel you have to respond, perhaps you could
use one of the flags to show that you understand
that the material quoted and the reply itself
are off-topic (OT), politics (POL), or otherwise
a part of thread drift (META).

As a general rule, one person's "mission posting"
is another person's troll.

Marty
--
The Big-8 hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk)
are under new management. See http://www.big-8.org for details.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
But when a bona fide member of the group advocates exterminating Muslims
and threatens to lynch them, it is unconscionable for people participating
in that conversation to let the remarks pass.

"Participating" being a key point. I don't think that's what Thomas was
saying...he seems to expect each and every newsgroup participant who sees an
abominable statement like that to respond with a disagreement.

I agree that if you are in a discussion and let something like that just go
unanswered, that's tacit approval. But for someone not engaged in the
discussion at hand (and this includes even if they are engaged in some other
portion of the thread...we've had two, three, sometimes more levels of
bifurcation in a single thread and it's unreasonable to expect everyone
participating in one branch to monitor and/or respond to other branches), I
don't see any reason to expect a response.

Pete

Peter,

don't think that's what Thomas was
saying...he seems to expect each and every newsgroup participant who sees an
abominable statement like that to respond with a disagreement.


Well, you might define "seeing" as "participating". ;-)

But no, I had the participants in mind. We had zero or maybe one opposing post.
We had more participants...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Gary Drescher" wrote

But when a bona fide member of the group advocates exterminating Muslims and
threatens to lynch them, it is unconscionable for people participating in that
conversation to let the remarks pass.

One more time, and understand this, you can't respond when you stopped reading
the thread.
--
Jim in NC