And so I take it that you would support blocking people who make unsubstantiated charges of "racism" against either members of this list or individuals whose only reason for being accused of "racism" is that they favor a particular math curriculum or method of teaching, or are skeptical (in a reasonable, polite way) about other curricula or methods?
How about suggestions that we "blow up the schools of education"? Would that be covered, or is that socially acceptable on this list, in your view?
When is an ad hominem attack okay? That is to say, are ad hominem attacks from SOME list members acceptable, or will you actively support blocking ANYONE who indulges in ad hominems, foul language (and let's be very clear that there's no agreement here as to what comprises "foul language"), false accusations, and other mendacities"?
Rather than your citing of past history, real and imagined, in your previous post, I'll forego references to anyone's track record in adhering to refraining from both the things you mention and some other things that I and some other list members find to be purposely inflammatory and designed to have a chilling effect on reasonable disagreement and discourse.
On my view, some list members have systematically tried to have it both ways: complain about the behavior of only members whose views they wish weren't being expressed, while both tolerating similar behaviors from those with whom they agree, and also very neatly skirting the line between civil and offensive discourse so as to be able to claim moral high ground while clearly intending to bait and insult those holding dissenting views or merely expressing some small doubt or skepticism.
There's no need to mention names or point fingers. EIther there is a set of reasonable guidelines and everyone agrees not just to abide by them but also to see to it that others do, regardless of whether these others are viewed as allies, opponents, friends, or strangers, or this will continue to be what it has been.
On Jul 21, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Greg Goodknight wrote:
> 4) The Mathforum acts under the authority of the existing rules of > the Mathforum and Drexel and block those who persist in abusing > this list with ad hominems, foul language, false accusations and > other mendacities.