> Don't worry, native English speakers have no idea, either. I read the > sage-sexist remark as a joke, but after Mike's followup, maybe not. In my > experience, >95% of the > I was somewhat serious. The irony was that I really thought it was a communication problem (either intentional or unintentional) until William cleared it up and I think it was better that he did.
> English-speakers address each other informally as "guys", including > females addressing mixed groups. (I personally hate the term, but that's > beside the point.) > I'm with you on this one, and I try not to use it myself and this is probably why I misunderstood. > > About the larger question: suppose (as William points out) someone(s) > ignore(s) a request to move something(s) to sage-flame. An alternate > approach to banning might be a policy of, "si salvi chi può": simply start > a new thread. In my limited experience, those engaged in verbal combat > stick it out in the particular thread where lies the matter they can't let > lie. > I think that this is a good technique that might work in cases when a conversation has over-heated to the point where requests for a move to sage-flame are in order. I think this is where I think a code of conduct is in order because its hard for a conversation to rise to this temperature if posters follow a "be respectful" mantra. If posters ignore the idea that they need to be polite or people don't speak up when the tone gets heated, there will be the occasional offended party who will probably be more reluctant to post the next time. -Mike > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
