South Bruce Peninsular - A call for decorum - Comments

Blame it on the Stars

garym — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:03:14 -0500

This is very interesting: That just-previous comment of mine calling for a return to some sense of civility and decorum was posted on March 3, 2007, and it follows on a posting calling for decorum that was posted on March 28th, 2005 ... now, dig this: In both cases, the planet Mars was at precisely the same position in the sky! The two events are spaced by one complete apparent orbit, cycling around from and back to 4 degrees Aquarius as measured astrologically from the equinox Point of Aries!

Traditionally, Aquarius, as the song tells us, is all about humanity and enlightenment, and also is said to mark upsetting changes, technological innovations, new ages, new ideas, the Water Bearer, the only human zodiac sign, pours out new wealth from a vessel of nature's water. And then there's the intruding Mars, as the name suggests, said to signify martial things, like fights and quarrels, and as it's colour suggests, Mars is said to herald firey things, like passion and anger; red-uniformed atheletes win a conspicuously high number of events, red in an exam room has been proven to interfere with concentration.

Curious, ain't it? Now I can't wait until 2009 so I can see if I've found a real trend here!

garym: ict evangelist - musician - whatever

Basic Facts About Holding Discussions Online

garym — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:22:19 -0500

This comment has been moved here.

A call for decorum

garym — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:50:02 -0500

Just a heads up to the SBP membership here and a call for members to remember that this is a public forum with a responsibility for civility in what we write -- we had an incident today where I was contacted to remove a posting; the subject of the post felt they were being defamed in public and while they were fine with the rest of the post, they wanted the matter corrected by the SBP 'editors' -- being a free-speech sort of guy, I was initially hesitant because the postings here are property of their authors and I didn't want to set any dangerous precidents, but on careful review of the appropriate regulations, it seems I was mistaken; they were very much within their rights to make this request. According to NCRA:

In law, liability for defamation doesn't depend on whether a media outlet shares or agrees with the opinion of guests or callers, it depends on whether it "publishes" the opinion-and "publishes" in this context means broadcasts or conveys to the public.
[ via Laws Affecting Canadian Media Definitions ]

The post in question has been amended to remove the personal references; the guidelines for what constitutes 'defamation' are an interesting read, and while there are calls for libel reform more in tune with the realities of the Information Age, there are also some chilling precidents that spread a wide shadow -- for the interim perhaps we should do the Canadian thing and be a tad more distanced and polite when we go for the jugulars.