paul wheaton wrote: go and read (or re-read) every last post of the be nice thread.
Paul, I did go and reread it.
I do appreciate your attempts to keep things "clean", but trying to remember exactly what I wrote, do not feel I had overstepped any guidelines!
I was on the (developing) topic of the post, and did not direct criticism or "slander" at any other member of the discussion/forum.
I did use the word "yahoo" to describe those who go into forests to hunt without respecting the game, nature in general or other users, without suggesting that any other poster was one.
When one choose to feel I had, I even (as I remember it) apologized if he had interpreted it that way and reiterated that the label was not directed at him but that I was using the term as it would be applied by most hunters I know in common usage.
"Yahoo" is in dictionaries & common usage with a clear meaning.
Was my comment blunt and to the point? Yes. I note that a few of your own posts are also blunt and to the point, much like your post about the deleting, some of your posts on the topic of being nice, and I believe I remember one in particular to the guy who wanted to use engine oil that was, IMHO, downright intolerant, even though I am sure that was never your intention.
I have to admit that the other participants posts that were deleted were also blunt and it could be said that they were written "in a raised voice", I as the target was not offended by them. Didn't agree with him at all, but I certainly wasn't offended nor did I feel his language was inappropriate.
I can't help thinking that this is the sort of issue that crops up when individual subjective standards are used to judge what is appropriate. Not only may they not be clear to all, or understood the same by all who read them, they also may be inconsistent based on our mood at the time. I know that in my case my response to minor annoyances (could be related to something the kids are doing, definitely could be related to something my mother in law does ) can differ substantially, but that does not help me improve my response nor does it set standards for others that are clear to them so that they can follow them.
With that in mind, perhaps the key, often, is to measure twice and then, only if it is really needed, saw once?
P.S. definitely off topic now, but if I posted this to the being nice thread I on't know that you would know which posts I am referring to, so posted here. hope that is o.k....