brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/13/85)
jj bitches: > > 1) Net.politics is no longer (if it ever was), a free >forum for discussion. My SO and I (I don't have a dog) certainly >don't feel it is, at least. > > 2) If the individuals who wish to participate in >net.politics cannot regulate themselves (including putting down >those who attack people and threaten them), then net.politics >has no use, and should be deleted, in order to remove its >utility for those who occupy it through the use of threat and >slander. > >Don't send me mail, my mailbox (at least the ones that the >net knows about) are again linked to /dev/null. > >(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj "You guys are cheating, and besides, you shouldn't be allowed to play anymore, and, and, I'm gonna go to my room and pout so don't go calling me names, 'cause I'm not gonna hear you anyways!" I thought a "free forum" meant people could say anything they wanted. Apparently it nows means anything jj agrees with. Merlyn Leroy Usenet: VENT your SPLEEN all over the SCREEN!
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/15/85)
What we have here is another misreading of an article. JJ is complaining about the bozos who, because they have brains about the size of a pea, cannot debate without using name calling or disecting the grammar. It happens all too often that, because some twit cannot refute an argument, they turn to calling names. I don't blame jj one bit. There are too many pencil-necked nerds out there who cannot seem to understand that they should be replying to logic, not hurling insults. If they wish to do the latter, there is always net.flame. On the other hand, as long as they stick to the subject, they are welcome to contribute. Picking apart someone's spelling or grammar or insulting their background is a sure sign that they are at a lose to refute the logic of the original poster. Now, just watch some feather brain defend this method of debate. T. C. Wheeler
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/16/85)
Don't worry too much about jj leaving net.politics. He's tried before with
a lot of pomp, but he just can't quit.
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophiemjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/16/85)
>From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) >It happens all too often that, because some >twit cannot refute an argument, they turn to calling names. I >don't blame jj one bit. There are too many pencil-necked nerds >out there who cannot seem to understand that they should be >replying to logic, not hurling insults. I see what you mean.
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/28/85)
The idea (as set forth by M. Leroy) that an opportunity for a
political discussion means one can say "anything [he] wants.." is
unfortunately revealing of serious misunderstanding of freeedom of
speech, of democracy, and of need for mutual trust and responsbility
for a democracy to function.
In any serious discussion forum it is generally a very serious
breach of the rules to argue "ad hominem" -- i.e. to attack the person
rather than the person's ideas. In all of our legislative bodies this
is the reason that members are not even permitted to address one
another directly, but must address the chair.
The sad fact is that a wonderful opportunity like this cannot
work for long unless the participants either develop a very thick
skin and ignore the violators of the necessary unwritten order; or a
moderator of some sort is willing to serve (time, energy?) and is
accepted as has already been discussed by others. Of course, in an
open meeting a moderator cannot function as an unseen censor... his
rulings can be appealed and overruled by the group, whereas in this
medium we would never know what items are being censored out as
"improper" contributions.
Certainly it would help if those who seem to have a need to
attack the other person, rather than the ideas being set forth,
remember that this tactic invariably betrays the bankruptcy of the
arguments... one who has confidence in the seriousness and solid
ground for his or her arguments would not want to weaken them by
resorting to name calling, put-downs, or questioning the motives of
others.