Posted by reifiedbeans on September 17, 2002, at 14:35:58
In reply to Re: weight neutral » pharmrep, posted by LLL on September 17, 2002, at 12:07:52
> There was nothing "nasty" in her posting, however your judgement of her comment as such was.
Her comment, calling Pharmrep's careful statement "hogwash", was nasty, as was LLL's response to Pharmrep (above).
Why would Mark H ask me to be civil for calling
Hawkeye an idiot when his advice was to "stay away" from Lexapro "unless you are a eunuch"?Such statements--that only "eunuchs" should take Lexapro or that the statistically valid claims of weight-neutrality are "hogwash" and "my arse"--are at best unconstructive and at worst rather nasty and misleading lies.
So, in an attempt to clear up some confusion, if I call the purveyors of such crap idiots or if Pharmrep describes the vitriol as "nasty", in what sense can that be seen as a breach of civility? The lines of politeness had already been crossed.
Last time I checked, calling somebody an idiot was not a crime, in part because it is clearly an expression of opinion. Making deliberately false and malicious statements, however, is a crime called slander. Both Hawkeye and Christina are guilty of it. Yet those who oppose their bullshit are given civility warnings?
Rather ironic when you consider that the root meaning of "civil" is law-abiding, that those opposing the slanderers are branded uncivil...
poster:reifiedbeans
thread:109458
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020914/msgs/120157.html