Civility

[information.general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The following is taken from a posting from another list that 
encountered problems with clashing personalities. I think it makes 
good food for thought for anyone who considers making personal 
attacks on public forums such as these. The list this posting was 
taken from i eventually unsubscribed from due to the lack of dignity 
of its participants. They were more willing to participate in 
childish squabbles than maintain aloofness when in the face of 
antagonisation. I hope I don't have to do the same with this one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 ..... but, at the risk 
of continuing this thing and abusing the bandwidth further, I would like 
to think a minute about the ethics -- or about the very possibility -- of 
virtual communities like this one.

We all know that if you antagonize somebody enough, that person will 
eventually oblige you by becoming antagonized.  This is fair.  I think 
the scramble for moral high ground that comes in the wake of these 
exchanges, in which lurkers post in calling for order as though they're 
having to come down to the playroom and separate the squabbling children, 
only perpetuates and worsens that antagonism.  It is dishonest, and 
disingenuous, to call for business as usual after this public space has 
been used to antagonize and provoke one of its members.

Something else has to happen.  What? -- I don't know.  But it seems that 
the list has to begin by acknowledging what happened to it, and that all 
of us are implicated in its abuse.  There is no moral high ground when 
something like this happens.  Pardon, all, if this sounds too preachy or 
righteous.  Really, I just find at times like this that we're dealing 
with more important and provocative issues than perhaps we realize.