Banning name calling

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Hello all
I'm thinking of outright banning name calling in letters to the editor and this forum. I just have thought about it over and over and can't see a useful reason for it. Should a politician be called an "idiot" ever? In what cases? Of course this rule would also apply to our own editorials.
Thoughts?

[Bob Jentges]

Hello all
I'm thinking of outright banning name calling in letters to the editor and this forum. I just have thought about it over and over and can't see a useful reason for it. Should a politician be called an "idiot" ever? In what cases? Of course this rule would also apply to our own editorials.
Thoughts?

Joe, I think my "month off" from posting in the Forum is over, or close enough that I will respond to you.

The way I see it name calling adds nothing to any debate or discussion. It is usually used when a party has no good arguements to put forth to substanciate his/her position. What an individual thinks or what they might write in a private or personal & confidential letter to another, or even say to another's face is one thing. But putting such stuff in writing for publication in a newspaper like The Free Press should be avoided, and if not, editied out before published.

[Ben Willaert]

There is the saying that swearing is only for those that can’t figure out something more intelligent to say. Our English language has just passed the 1 million word mark; more than double the second place Chinese language with 500 thousand words. In my book, name calling and swearing go hand in hand.

Name calling has almost become cliché. Whenever someone presents a view or idea that another disagrees with, they resort to name calling to discredit the source. Name calling stirs emotions instead of logic. Solutions are difficult to come by because of the focus on emotions instead of the actual problem at hand.

I am pleased to see that across our country right now people are getting fired up about politics. Unfortunately though, that involves a lot of name calling, rumors, and naive clichés. Hopefully our society can move past these playground tactics, and figure out some solutions. But I think it takes us getting fired up first so we can learn more about the issues, and gain new perspectives.

[Robert Redding]

Any ad hominem contributes nothing to an argument, *clears throat* I mean "discussion." Name calling falls short of this at times, as it can also be a form of opinion - which is what letters to the editor and most story comments are all about. Unfortunately, the vast array of opinions and subsequent perceptions thereof leave room for name calling. It's a strong manner of voicing disagreement with one's argument without resorting to outright profanity.

I guess if a person can show reasonable evidence an opinion is the result of "ignorance" (e.g. factually incorrect), then being labeled as such is warranted, if perceptually undignified. At the same time, using "idiot," "imbecile," or other word with actual definitions for a low IQ are just ignorant, since the name-caller likely has no way to know if the label is actually true, and are using such garbage to make their point – at the same time making themselves appear, well, ignorant.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Well said by all. And thank you. I shall endeavor to rid this from our editorial pages, forums and other areas. However, I suspect my endeavors will lead me to be kept very busy.

[Matt Christianson]

Ok, Stupid. Kidding, kidding!!

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I tend to think that if people want to call names in a letter to the editor or wherever, go ahead and let them. Why give them the benefit of an editor to cover their immaturity? In these forums a guideline asking for no name calling would be fine, with repeat offenders getting a 1-week timeout.

[Bob Jentges]

Well said by all. And thank you. I shall endeavor to rid this from our editorial pages, forums and other areas. However, I suspect my endeavors will lead me to be kept very busy.

Happy Monday morning Joe!

I expect your voice mail, inbox, etc., are full as usual. But to quote President George W. Bush, since you have designated yourself as the
"decider" in this monumental endeavor, I submit a situation to you for a decision. For some background, please refer to the "Health care a right" thread and read posts #25, 27, & 29. My question is:

---When a member calls himself a derogatory name is he subject to
sanctions?

Occassional humor in the workplace (even if facetious) is often a good thing.

[Dan Conner]

Well said by all. And thank you. I shall endeavor to rid this from our editorial pages, forums and other areas. However, I suspect my endeavors will lead me to be kept very busy.Joe--

I feel awkward responding to you, but I feel I must. I suggest you review all the posts in healthcare and others. Bob, in his "run to teacher" way, attempts to have me removed from the forum? It was he who launched himself into one of my posts with many personal insults. I can't understand someone who uses personal insults and name calling as a vehicle to respond to me, asks for review of my posts.

I feel I am perfectly able to survive in the atmosphere of his personal attacks, but I guess he can't. I would hope that he should be able to take it if he chooses to dish it out. I would suggest that if he whines about posts he sees as insulting that he avoid doing the same. In particular, he should avoid initiating insults.

[Bob Jentges]

Being "facitious" means not serious or said in jest. My post directed to Joe, as indicated therin, was humor (a joke) intended to make him laugh or at least smile as he started his day in the serious business as editor of a newspaper.

Two of the three posts I cited were my posts. I do not know anyone that would seriously suggest a member of the Forum should be banned from the Forum for insulting themself!

I do not know Joe very well, but I expect he has a sense of humor. I think it's a quality we all need.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I plead guilty to having a sense of humor. :) There are laws that are enforced and then there are laws that stand as rules that right minded people respect and mostly obey. How is that for an indirect answer to a direct question. :)

[Bob Jentges]

I plead guilty to having a sense of humor. :) There are laws that are enforced and then there are laws that stand as rules that right minded people respect and mostly obey. How is that for an indirect answer to a direct question. :)

In response to your opening sentence, that makes at least two of us!

With respect to your second sentence, I think self defense is a legitimate use to counter violaters of both of the "laws" you cite.

In response to your final sentence, I guess that's why you get paid the big bucks.:)

[Dan Conner]

In response to your opening sentence, that makes at least two of us!

With respect to your second sentence, I think self defense is a legitimate use to counter violaters of both of the "laws" you cite.

In response to your final sentence, I guess that's why you get paid the big bucks.:)Bob, I and others have endured your very whiny nonhumor before. You say you jest while you complain to Joe Spears, like a typical elementary student whining to his school teacher during recess. Others have commented about your lack of humor/good taste. I think I remember Liz Ratcliff questioning your humor. It seems you like to call your back door insults as some twisted sense of humor.

Since your humor seems to be so often being mistaken, why don't you stick to the subject and stop hiding behind Joe Spears or your conservative buddies. Start debating the subject and stop playing to an audience. You are a long way from an Oscar.

[Matt Christianson]

The last time I checked this thing is called the forum and not recess. A forum recalls a time when people with intelligent thoughts debated the issues of the day. From what I have read there is some thoughtful discussion of the issues but it quickly unravels in to a bestial and sophomoric hissy fit most always instigated by Mr. Conner. Dan, if you can't add anything substantive to the discussion, then silence yourself. If you take offense to what someone says to you or about you, try exercising a bit of tact. If you can't handle a dignified discussion with people of opposing views then it's probably time you rescind your membership to this forum. I mean no disrespect or offense to you but I'd rather this be a place where ideas can be freely exchanged by thoughtful adults. This should be a place that encourages new members to join and not be intiminated by the likes of you. And no, if you're wondering, I am not in the least bit intiminated.

[Dennis Mikkelson]

Test for user Dennis Mikkelson

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I and others have endured your very whiny nonhumor before. You say you jest while you complain to Joe Spears, like a typical elementary student whining to his school teacher during recess. Others have commented about your lack of humor/good taste. I think I remember Liz Ratcliff questioning your humor. It seems you like to call your back door insults as some twisted sense of humor.

Since your humor seems to be so often being mistaken, why don't you stick to the subject and stop hiding behind Joe Spears or your conservative buddies. Start debating the subject and stop playing to an audience. You are a long way from an Oscar.

IT IS NOT MY INTENT to bury Matt's post #14 in the event you still intend to respond to him, but with all due respect your suggesting "...others have endured..." and/or "...others have commented..." has no influence on what I write. I do not write to win any popularity contests. I write to express my opinions and try to have a little fun doing it. As far as I can tell you and your "others" are not the word police (yet)!

If I knew someone was keeping score, or this would develop into a battle of testimonialsm I would have saved the snail mail letters I have recieved from local and out-of state readers (none of whom I have ever met) who appreciate what I write and ask me to continue.

If you and your "others" do not like what I write, the solution is simple---DO NOT READ IT!

[Dan Conner]

IT IS NOT MY INTENT to bury Matt's post #14 in the event you still intend to respond to him, but with all due respect your suggesting "...others have endured..." and/or "...others have commented..." has no influence on what I write. I do not write to win any popularity contests. I write to express my opinions and try to have a little fun doing it. As far as I can tell you and your "others" are not the word police (yet)!

If I knew someone was keeping score, or this would develop into a battle of testimonialsm I would have saved the snail mail letters I have recieved from local and out-of state readers (none of whom I have ever met) who appreciate what I write and ask me to continue.

If you and your "others" do not like what I write, the solution is simple---DO NOT READ IT!Bob, you couldn't have said it better. Guess what, the same applies to me. I surely know what others have written have not affected you, and neither shall they, or you, affect me. And ditto for me about your word police.

I would suggest that [B][U]you[B][U] have held this debate as a way to "keep score." In fact, you quickly run to any referee you can to influence the outcome. And I feel the same about what I write. There is nothing new or enlightening about what you feel. I feel the same. Well Bob, you just go ahead and continue. We will continue our writing effort each being fueled by outside supporters. I just thought that you were better able to present your own ideas without getting the newspaper to censure your dissenters.

If you want to debate, lets debate, but either do it or quit. You don't have to solicit assistance from the paper to censure your opponent.