Ad hominem attacks

[Amy Z]

You are correct--I took the term "ad hominem" and ran with it, but I 
should have paused.  In a polite conversation about contentious 
matters, it is not enough to rule "ad hominem" attacks out of 
bounds.  It is also important to eschew rudeness.

That is why I contend that Gwen's post was way out of bounds:  
because it was rude.  If you disagree, well, that's fine.  What 
constitutes rudeness is often a judgment call.  The call is for the 
Admins to make, after you and I have contributed all the Knuts we 
desire to spend.

I personally think the deletion rule is not necessary and I'd have 
worded it "the post MAY be deleted," but again, it's really hard for 
me to get all worked up about it.  Feedback was set up at a rather 
tense time in the life of the lists, and perhaps the extra-firm 
language (is that like extra-firm tofu?) reflects that.  

As Dicey said, this isn't a penal code.  It is a rule by volunteers, for 
volunteers, in a community to which no one is forced to belong.  Of 
course we all want the rules to be reasonable and enforced fairly, 
but I really think the matter can rest once one has spoken up.  One 
says one's piece, the admins make the final call.  In this group they 
have the courtesy to explain their reasons.  (The only cases I have 
known where someone just stopped responding to a list member 
were when the list member didn't seem to be engaging in honest 
debate, seemed to be spoiling for a fight, or simply didn't accept 
the premises of the group or its fundamental rules--e.g., some 
people cannot tolerate that HPfGU doesn't allow policy discussion 
on lists other than support lists [such as this one].  In other words, 
when the conversation was no longer a conversation but simply a 
harangue.)

If we don't like a ruling, we generally shrug and say "oh well"; if we 
*consistently* dislike the management of the group, we go find 
another one whose rules we prefer.  For my part, I care much more 
about the spirit of the rules than the letter.

Amy Z