Unless I am quite mistaken about what was perceived to be offensive, I personally did not find that language offensive. However, I am a bit concerned about how the whole thing is being handled. If a person has a complaint about language, there should be guidelines about what language the community of emailers deems inappropriate and there should be guidelines about how to handle situations that arise. There appears to be a process in place here, and presumably it is being followed, which is as things should be. The thing that is worrysome is the rationale behind statements like this: >I believe it is the first time that I have ever received anything from her >and I don't believe that she has ever posted anything to the list in the 18 >months that I have been on it. I have removed her email address because I >don't want anybody to send her emails criticising her position. But given >that George has contributed 71 items in the past 18 months I think I know >whose contribution to the list I value the more highly. This suggests that a determination of whether the behavior is appropriate or not, and the handling of it, is dependent on an estimation of the contribution the party in question has made to the community. Reductio ad absurdum, this is akin to Presidential pardons for campaign contributors or not prosecuting a murder charge against a war hero or philanthropist. I would hope that differential participation of members in the mailing list would NOT be allowed to bias or influence enforcement of the rules, and I do not think it is wise to issue statements that give the impression that this is how things are done. Respectfully, Blyden Potts

I personally had no problem with the language used, and I think it's time we all move on and get past this. We are presumably all descendants of various Page lines, and I would assume we all joined this list to help find our ancestors. Let's get past this issue and start searching for those lost Page people! Brenda Page Hare ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blyden Potts" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:12 PM Subject: [PAGE] PAGE-L how are rules handled? > Unless I am quite mistaken about what was perceived to be offensive, > I personally did not find that language offensive. However, I am a bit > concerned about how the whole thing is being handled. If a person has > a complaint about language, there should be guidelines about what > language the community of emailers deems inappropriate and there > should be guidelines about how to handle situations that arise. There > appears to be a process in place here, and presumably it is being > followed, which is as things should be. > > The thing that is worrysome is the rationale behind statements like this: > > > >I believe it is the first time that I have ever received anything from her > >and I don't believe that she has ever posted anything to the list in the 18 > >months that I have been on it. I have removed her email address because I > >don't want anybody to send her emails criticising her position. But given > >that George has contributed 71 items in the past 18 months I think I know > >whose contribution to the list I value the more highly. > > This suggests that a determination of whether the behavior is appropriate > or not, and the handling of it, is dependent on an estimation of the > contribution > the party in question has made to the community. Reductio ad absurdum, > this is akin to Presidential pardons for campaign contributors or not > prosecuting > a murder charge against a war hero or philanthropist. > > I would hope that differential participation of members in the mailing list > would > NOT be allowed to bias or influence enforcement of the rules, and I do not > think > it is wise to issue statements that give the impression that this is how > things > are done. > > Respectfully, > Blyden Potts > > > ==== PAGE Mailing List ==== > PAGE list website - http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/PAGE.htm >