banning people who've stated an opinion (albeit perhaps not in the most constructive manner possible but still...) would only function (right word please?) to show we are as intolerant some of the rest of the world. How would that serve to put forward a viewpoint that is both tolerant & accepting of diversity as we should be *imo* simply due to the fact we are multiples (well most of us are...). I'm certain I'm not stating this very well here & I'm not the spokesperson for my House. However, My House shares this view: Banning someone for the recent little um discussion wouldn't serve any purpose but to show we can be as intolerant as alot of people we've met are to us.
We'd rather they be allowed to stay & if they show promise in learning so be it. If not fine but so long as they don't flame people for their differing opinions I/We see no reason they should be silenced. I/We hope that is a fair enough assessment of things.
*any & all typos & wrongly stated or badly structured sentences are Tatianas fault so don't blame the rest of us. :P ~Adriana*
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 04:01 pm (UTC)We'd rather they be allowed to stay & if they show promise in learning so be it. If not fine but so long as they don't flame people for their differing opinions I/We see no reason they should be silenced. I/We hope that is a fair enough assessment of things.
*any & all typos & wrongly stated or badly structured sentences are Tatianas fault so don't blame the rest of us. :P ~Adriana*
Tatiana