In Chatlist 6772, Michael defends freedom of speech, “even to the point of a verbal attack”. Michael gives the *impression* that Bea personally attacked; but Bea saying “you all” was NOT a personal attack. Right Michael? Michael then vigorously exercises his of freedom of speech, verbally attacking Bea: “No, Bea,Continue Reading
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:48:23 -0400 From: Al Cooke Subject: No offense intended There are several instances in the movie Little Big Man where the Dustin Hoffman character says something about “redskins” to his adoptive grandfather, the Chief Dan George character. Hoffman then follows up with, “no offense” toContinue Reading
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 00:11:51 -0400 From: John R Dykers Subject: Anonymity and pseudonymity and signed posts Tom Sisk wrote “Especially if you posted insults and incivility.” Others have rationally defended unsigned posts. My synthesis is that when we post we seek civility in tone no matter the disagreementContinue Reading
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:09:13 -0400 From: sarah shook Subject: Anonymous I choose to post under my name and don’t mind the backlash but I also respect (and understand) an individual who chooses to post by another moniker. Gene’s reasons are valid and sound. Ultimately, truth is truth regardlessContinue Reading
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:35:59 -0400 From: cryptik Subject: Dear Chathamites on Anonymity Dear Karen Crowell: I fear that you have already decided your conclusions before hearing the information, and therefore are of a sufficiently closed mind that you cannot participate in a logical debate on the subject ofContinue Reading
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:15:31 -0400 From: John R Dykers Subject: Anonymousphobics I don’t know whether or not you just coined the word, anonymousphobics, but it is a great addition to the lexicon! Ttruth is often ellusive and temporal rather that the comforting absolute we all wish it were.Continue Reading
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:26:12 -0700 (PDT) From: deborah bair Subject: we need to be able to post without names As much as I hate it, and as much as I love “freedom of speech”..whazzups last example is exactly why we need to be able to post without names..heContinue Reading
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:36:58 -0400 From: J Subject: Freedom of Speech is to protect speech that we find “nasty” On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Chatham Chatlist wrote: > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:19:24 -0400 > From: Karen Crowell > Subject: anonymity – a rightContinue Reading
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:26:43 -0400 From: Margaret Zwilling Subject: I. Ingram post What important discussion(s) are you referring to? Starkweather, Amendment 1? The operative word of this column I believe is “Chatlist.” You can have your say by nasty emails, surely Nabooko can have his say but suggestingContinue Reading
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:31:35 -0500 From: Lynn Fass Subject: fracking I wasn’t going to send this post to the Chatlist, but after thinking about it, I would like all to please read it. Chatlist, >>I recently have been ridiculed on the Chatlist, for my outspoken behavior at >>Continue Reading
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:59:15 -0400 From: carole henry Subject: Its a good thing there is a Chatlist If it wasn’t for the Chatham Chatlist, the GSC would not have known about the extent of dissatisfaction of its former customers. The reality of it is, that when most customersContinue Reading
Chatham Chatlist ©2024