Re: RC: Endure the flames

["Truman Prevatt, PhD" <truman.prevatt@netsrq.com>]

The problem is one person's challenge of ideas is another's flame! If asked a 1000
different people the definition of a "flame", you'd probably get 1000 different
definitions.  So as for me I'd rather allow someone to compare me to "dirty low life
pond scum" than to risk cutting off the free flow if ideas.

So can we discuss some equestrian topics now?

Truman

Bette Lamore wrote:

> Too bad you feel you have to allow flaming in order to have debates of
> ideas. I LOVE a good debate. (I'm in one now and I haven't yet called
> you a name or described you as stupid, etc.) In fact, I was the only one
> in high school who was INVITED to join the debate team; the others had
> to apply! ;-) Like it or not, censorship IS allowed when it comes to
> insults and snitty personal remarks... and as I wrote, it is Steph's
> party and she has said she will remove flamers.
> I for one applaud her and perhaps many people who previously left
> ridecamp will hear of this policy and come back!
> This chat room was started for the exchange and advancement of ideas and
> information--- and it has been absolutely incredibly successful at doing
> that! The ones who want to throw insults and personal attacks (and there
> seems to be just a few of those and they seem to be the same
> ones....hummmm), well, they can start their own group. (I sincerely hope
> I am not speaking out of turn, Steph.) It has been refreshing since I've
> come back to see a whole lot less flaming---- hooray!
> Bette, who never had heard that term-- flaming-- until I came on
> ridecamp. Is it in Websters???
>