On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 06:51, Michael R. Irwin wrote: Think before you post, Mike. Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion, or said he should be stopped from expressing it. The freedom to speak does not include freedom from criticism for that speech. Now compare to what Jaap said. The implication of his post is that men should decide "important" issues alone and women should be barred from any consideration in deciding them. Now that truly IS a restriction of liberty, wouldn't you say? -- adamw

Michael R. Irwin wrote: (speaking of Mav, I think -- it gets hard to follow so many indents in followups) I've referred to certain newcomers as "crackpots", not "kooks", based solely on what they have written in articles, talk pages & meta. Perhaps it's offensive that I've judged them and labelled them as such, but it's based on their actions and that alone. If their behaviour changes, so will my opinion of them. Saying "X is a kook" or "X cannot properly engage in serious discussion" may be considered harsh and offensive. We should perhaps tone that sort of thing down -- however, in the case I'm thinking of, myself and others wasted a lot of time wrangling with BDJones about relativity. We treated him fairly, responded intelligently, tried to see his way of seeing things, and after a time it became clear that he is either a) completely impervious to reason or b) running circles round us on purpose. I propose the words "kook" and "crackpot" be used as a shorthand for the above scenario, "crackpot" implying a scientific or pseudoscientific slant. Fair enough? That's all a very, very long way from saying "all people of type X are kooks". Adam Williamson wrote: to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion I do, damn it. -- tarquin

Adam Williamson <aw280(a)cam.ac.uk> writes: Freedom of thought doesn't give someone the right to insult other people like Jaap did with his remark about women. greetings, elian -- ========= Open Content statt Copyright ========== http://de.wikipedia.org - Die freie Enzyklopaedie

Adam Williamson wrote: Yes, but I have to right to the *opinion* that Jaap doesn't have the right to to his opinion... etc etc etc Jaap's comment was offensive, he appears to have left the building without explaining is he really meant it or was just kidding in bad taste. meanwhile, we're wrapping ourselves in knots. Can we say case closed? we're wasting good editing time! tarquin

tarquin wrote: I wouldn't even say that these comments are harsh, Just offensive. These terms don't advance any discussion of whatever is the topic. Applying them to the person rather than the ideas means that you're using ad hominem arguments, and that's offensive. In discussing science what advantage is there to calling other views pseudoscientific just because they don't agree with yours or the majority opinion. It only shows that scientists are just as petty as anybody else. Offhanded dismissiveness does more to promote pseudoscience than to stop it. Eclecticology

Lars Aronsson wrote: I think that I have learned that many of our mailing list suscribers do not embrace many of the etiquette, policies, rules, orientation materials, etc. Yet we (some of us) are demanding that erring individuals who are brought to the list's attention near instantly come into near perfect compliance or be banned. I think we should begin a consensus building process or modification and ratification process to bring the stated rules and the actual enforcement procedures into some clear congruence with the majority behavior and actions of the community. Regards, Mike Irwin