Posted by Lou Pilder on December 3, 2004, at 6:56:17
In reply to Re: doesn't mean he agrees, posted by Dr. Bob on December 3, 2004, at 4:49:52
Dr. Hsiung,
In the example in question, one could think that the poster directing "fruitcake" and "idiot" toward the other poster, (likadge), has the potential to be considerd a {personal attack}against linkadge. One could also have the potential to think that the words used toward the poster constitute {offensive language} toward another poster.
In gardengirl's post directed to the poster thatused the language toward linkadge, she thought that the language constitued that the poster look at the civility code. In that code, it writes that accusing others or putting down others is unacceptable according to the code here.
I could go along with the acceptance of "fruitcake" and 'idiot" to possibly be words that are not prohibited here,like the word that is prohibited here that could mean a donkey, but I feel and it is my opinion that the post could have the potential to be considered by some as falling into the part of the code here that speaks to {accusing others and putting down others or even jumping to a conclusion about another poster here}. There is also the aspect of defamation toward the poster as to how one defines defamation on a mental-health forum. Legally, I do not think that calling someone a "fruitcake or idiot" constitutes legal defamation, but I am thinking in terms of the type of defamation that has the potential to cause psychlogical and emotional harm to someone here. I call it defamation of the soul.
I am requesting that you modify your code in the FAQ to include that calling posters here these type of names be not acceptable and that if you could insert the example used here, I would appreciate that.
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:423270
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423788.html