Quote:

One thing that I try to keep in mind when on the internet is that the voice I assign to others when they post is not their voice.  It's my voice that I've assigned to them.  What may sound harsh when I read isn't necessarally the intent or what another person hears.

Well Preacher, here's a point we can both agree on ;D
I don't think it can stated often enough. Unlike face to face inter-action where you can see "nuances", a grin/smirk/glint in someone's eye, on the Internet as Preacher said, you assign a "voice/image" of what YOU think the other person is saying or must look like.

I bet everyone that posts regularly on the QJ, has in retrospect, at least once, read their post and thought, " Man, that didn't come out anything like I meant it too" ;) What sounds so smart/clever/humorous/wickedly sarcastic in your head, can come across in print in ways you never intended.

Most of us post on the fly, we don't type it out, sit and re-read it and then submit it.  I don't want too see people afraid to speak their minds, so I try and follow the old debating rule, attack the subject matter, not the person. Sometimes we slip, but for the most part, unless it's waaay beyond the pale, it's in a sarcastic/humorous way.

Now the article we've been discussing is a completely different animal. It had the benefit of time/re-writes/editing. So the author should expect it to be taken as it's written, good or bad, controversial or not.

There's been a few tiffs here that got out of hand, and the moderators shut them down, as they should. But having thick skin, and avoiding vicious personal attacks goes a long way in keeping the QJ a place where you can speak your mind and let the fur fly ;D