RE: What constitutes "bantering"?

From: Marotta, David 2-3718 (
Date: Wed Mar 19 1997 - 11:34:52 EST

No applogies necessary. I am of the opinion that staff perform their
as staff under a different set of guidelines from subscribers. For
at times staff need to say, "Be quiet and stop talking about this
We try to do it nicely, but whereas we may be required to say it, list
are not permitted to say such a thing to other list members. This is
the police asking nice law-abiding citizens to help break it up and move
along before a situation turns ugly. This appropriate, and good
aid the police by moving along.

The use of excessive force by police is always debated, but the
that the police do need to use force is not. In policing the list I
will be a good
police commissioner, trying to enlist fair minded people (like you Carl)
then trust their judgement.

I have never seen you beat people for the fun of it. <smile> You seem
hurt more than they do at times when reprimanding. <smile again.> That
has a good side to it.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carl W. Conrad []
>Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 1997 10:10 AM
>Subject: Re: What constitutes "bantering"?
>I feel very ambivalent about the message that I have just sent to the list
>under the above rubric. I was really fearful yesterday that the latest
>"MONOGENHS" exchange was about to erupt into a flame war, and so I
>questioned the propriety of Lee Martin's lengthy message on that subject. I
>had a nice personal note from him and I did respond to that in a way that I
>hope was helpful, but he had already sent an apology of his own to the
>list. It was dismaying, therefore, to see in this morning's BG messages:
>(1) the complaint about "bantering" as fundamental to BG exchanges (which I
>think doesn't reflect much careful observation), and (2) the unsigned 23K
>response of "Apokrisis" to Lee Martin.
>So: I sent my message and let it float. My apologies to the staff if it too
>seems inappropriate. In it I tried to use some of the language that we had
>attempted last fall to refine for use in a "Netiquette" section of a new
>FAQ for the list, and I said that I thought it was a perspective with which
>several members of the list agree. I hope that was true, but I nevertheless
>had a very queasy feeling about posting my message: it seems awfully heavy,
>and you may think that it too was inappropriate. If so, I'm sorry.
>Respectfully, cwc
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics, Washington University
>One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
>(314) 935-4018
> OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:10 EDT