Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 20:08:29
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2005, at 19:39:02
> You wrote,[...Yup...] and, [...{please abide by the civility guidlines of this site} would be better...].
> In your opinion, would the following be even better?
> The moderator could write, [...you wrote,{...} which has been determined as being unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum...].
> With this suggested format, the {...} would have the unacceptable statement in it. I think that the phrase,[...UNacceptable in relation to the Guidlines Of the Forum..., verse, [...civil...], could go along with your thinking.
But the second way of doing it makes it sound as though it is the particular phrase that was used that was considered to be a breech of civility guidelines of the site. But I think sometimes it might be the particular phrase in the context that it occured that might be the problem. This could be the case where the phrase is ambiguous and one of the senses would be considered uncivil while another might be considered civil. Whether the phrase gets a PBC or not would be a function fo the phrase in context.
> So instead of a PBC, you could hve a UNGOF. What do you think?
He he. I think UNGOF is funny. I'd better be careful not to say anything UNGOF :-)
Perhaps people who say things determined to be UNGOF could be referred to as UNGOFFERS???But then my acronym would be pretty funny too
:)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:493677
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/497825.html