Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified.
Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem here. What really are your objections to this whole issue?
This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice.
Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words.
Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the next day on a different issue.
In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long way with a traumatised newbie.
Ec