You know... people can't know what is offensive and what isn't if it isn't spelled out before hand. Sure, they may be things that were said by those of us who look at things a little differently than others that could be used to take offense, but nothing has been said about the possibility some of the original things said may have been as easy to take offense at.

We are all great at reacting. That is proven time and time again. Are we as quick to take offense and assume the worst in others in real life at something they say as we are here in an online forum?

At what point does the unspoken or assumed duty of someone responding to another's post to prevent giving offense cross the line into a form of political correctness? Where does the onus actually lie?

Perhaps this post itself would be best moved to it's own thread for topical discussion...

Thanks for making your opinions clear, Arbi.

I hope you enjoy your forum.

--Ray

Cat Herder wrote:

---

You know... people can't know what is offensive and what isn't if it isn't spelled out before hand. Sure, they may be things that were said by those of us who look at things a little differently than others that could be used to take offense, but nothing has been said about the possibility some of the original things said may have been as easy to take offense at.

We are all great at reacting. That is proven time and time again. Are we as quick to take offense and assume the worst in others in real life at something they say as we are here in an online forum?

At what point does the unspoken or assumed duty of someone responding to another's post to prevent giving offense cross the line into a form of political correctness? Where does the onus actually lie?

Perhaps this post itself would be best moved to it's own thread for topical discussion...

---

 PC is obviously bad, and we want to avoid that. But none of us here would use ethnic slurs against anyone either. I guess that the best guide is to be guided by the spirit.

Interesting development

link
NEW YORK   Al Qaeda's reported nuclear whiz kid a "tantalizing terror figure" with a $5 million bounty on his head was the figure investigators had hoped to snag in their 18-month probe of a plot to blow up a New York airport, the New York Post reported Monday. The name of Adnan Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, reportedly the man Usama bin Laden tapped to lead a previous plot to detonate nuclear bombs simultaneously in several U.S. cities, came up at several points in taped conversations during the probe, law-enforcement sources familiar with the investigation told the paper. Three Muslim men were nabbed Friday in the alleged plan to attack John F. Kennedy International Airport, which involved exploding a jet-fuel pipeline that snakes from New York to New Jersey. A fourth suspect is at large.

No it didn't... I just chose not to reply...

B-4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Bingo!!

Shyeah... last time I checked you were the one out there putting yourself on the line for the rest of the people who don't believe in bad things. And I suppose, the people who do believe in them, too.

Of course, if one is prepared to the extent you are (I'm talking stuff AND skills, here) there's probably not a lot of fear going on.