werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (09/21/88)
In article <267@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > In <5572@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, loci@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (loci!clb) writes: > > In article <265@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: [ disgusting slime-throwing contest deleted ] I consider it a personal offense to be made a witness to a slime-throwing contest, and posting this kind of crap in news.admin falls into that category. if you guys don't like each other, please be assured that news-admin doesn't want to know about it - so why don't you tell each other in private e-mail? and think about it, do you really care that little about the impression you make on readers of news.admin?! > The net has a perfectly good mechanism for dealing with postings > that cause aggravation; the reader merely doesn't read whatever > they find offensive. If it's too extreme, unsubscribe. I've seen this argument over and over again, and cannot help but refutiate: > the reader merely doesn't read whatever they find offensive. how do you determine that an article is offensive without reading it? whereas one can unsubscribe to a group with an "offensive" purpose or trend (some consider alt.flames in that category) I do not really accept the concept that some news-groups are by definition offensive, and no complaints should be made about the contents of any articles posted there. in the jokes groups it has become a custom to use rot13 to encrypt what might be considered offensive and it has worked quite well, it seems. in other groups, some people have the good sense of indicating in the Subject, Keywords, or Summary, that some people might be offended; sometimes that works, but most of the time it has me question the good sense of the poster to post the article anyway... > If it's too extreme, unsubscribe. that's like giving up the playground to the bullies... I will gladly abandon any group that gets voted into existence for the purpose to harbor offensive messages; other groups I will refuse to unsubcribe to in response to such a consideration. alt.flames? well, I have better things to do than to correct some peoples' lack of education and social graces ... I'm glad the group exists, though, to me, "flame" does not imply to mean that "offensive" is acceptable ... -- --------------------> PREFERED-RETURN-ADDRESS-FOLLOWS <--------------------- (ARPA) werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet: 128.83.144.1) (INTERNET) werner%rascal.ics.utexas.edu@cs.utexas.edu (UUCP) ..!utastro!werner or ..!uunet!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!werner
loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (09/22/88)
In article <3144@utastro.UUCP> werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >In article <267@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: >> In <5572@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, loci@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (loci!clb) writes: >> > In article <265@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > > [ disgusting slime-throwing contest deleted ] > >I consider it a personal offense to be made a witness to a slime-throwing >contest, and posting this kind of crap in news.admin falls into that >category. if you guys don't like each other, please be assured that >news-admin doesn't want to know about it - so why don't you tell each >other in private e-mail? and think about it, do you really care that little >about the impression you make on readers of news.admin?! Get this, one and all: there was nothing offensive, abusive, profane, insulting or otherwise objectionable about my posting to which you refer. Nothing. The fact that Allen Gwinn responded with a completely unprovoked attack is his problem, but I had no part in it. None. Further, I don't know Allen Gwinn, have never sent e-mail to him or responded to any of his posting prior to this occasion. Never. Are you getting the gist of this? NOTHING, NONE, NEVER. Allen Gwinn has taken it upon himself to flame me on several occasions, sends gobs of junk e-mail and otherwise take various licenses to attack me. Don't ask me why, I don't know. But it is strictly unilateral, and any one who says different is a liar. Is that clear? If you show me one message from me to him, I'll show you a forgery. > >> The net has a perfectly good mechanism for dealing with postings >> that cause aggravation; the reader merely doesn't read whatever >> they find offensive. If it's too extreme, unsubscribe. > Several months ago I posted a call to the net to set minimum standards for language and conduct and to take the responsibility for enforcing them. While my e-mail responding to that call was uniformly favorable, nothing was said or done by anyone. That is to say that no one is willing to be responsible for basic decency, claiming rights loud and long but ignoring the fact that rights always imply responsibility. Now, I take that to mean that the Usenet policy is "reader beware" and that any sort of obnoxious behavior will be tolerated. That doesn't mean that I like it or think it's a good idea, but I can only do so much myself. If Allen Gwinn is free to post slanders and lies about me, there is no way you can tell me that I haven't the same right: no way. But I don't choose to stoop to those depths and some people seem to think that that's a sign of weakness or something, and gives them the right to publicly post ridiculous lies. If you want to see for yourself, let me know: I've archived the lot. Now the net is having gang wars. You asked for it, each and everyone who has stood by while they harrass and disrupt group after group. You can't blame me for it, I have been too busy doing real work to have anything to do with it. But there it is. Usenet is the casaulty, as is truth, decency, and responsibility. You've made your bed, now lie in it. >> If it's too extreme, unsubscribe. > > that's like giving up the playground to the bullies... > It's too late to worry about that. This recent fray is the result of a gang of bullies who got insulted because they couldn't pick on others who emulate them. They want to get people disconnected the same way they tried to get me, but without real names they were thwarted. Too bad. I don't know whether they got their methods from Joe McCarthy or Adolf Hitler; both had a similar disregard for others, but the bad part is that they're allowed to continue. Well, I did what I could and spoke out. What did you do? >--------------------> PREFERED-RETURN-ADDRESS-FOLLOWS <--------------------- >(ARPA) werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet: 128.83.144.1) >(INTERNET) werner%rascal.ics.utexas.edu@cs.utexas.edu >(UUCP) ..!utastro!werner or ..!uunet!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!werner > > -- CLBrunow - ka5sof clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083
oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (09/23/88)
In article <2595@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes: > Several months ago I posted a call to the net to set minimum > standards for language and conduct and to take the responsibility > for enforcing them. Such "standards" will violate the basic freedom of speech previously enjoyed by the NET. In the last 4.5 years I have been on the NET news groups have been able to establish their own conduct and language guidelines and have managed to deal with the unavoidable periodic disruptions caused by new users and hot tempers. > Now, I take that to mean that the Usenet policy is "reader beware" > and that any sort of obnoxious behavior will be tolerated. There are a number of tools available to the USENET users to allow them to skip articles from or in reply to the offending users. More often than not, the problems go away by themselves. > I don't know whether they got their methods from Joe McCarthy > or Adolf Hitler; both had a similar disregard for others, > but the bad part is that they're allowed to continue. Speaking of Hitler -- there is a censorship mechanism built into the NET. A system administrator can disallow postings from certain users or may limit their NET access to certain groups. This kind of police action should not be delegated to anyone other than the sys admin of the site where the person in question posts. Don't play "NET.god" or the "NET.conscience" when you have neither the power nor the talent for either role. -- Oleg Kiselev "No regrets, no apologies" -- Ronald Reagan (213)337-5230 ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.cts.com UUCP:...!ucla-cs!lcc!oleg Copyright 1988 by Oleg Kiselev. All rights reserved. Quoting is allowed only if attributed.
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (09/23/88)
Oleg Kiselev argues that setting minimum standards for language and conduct violates some form of freedom of speech. He then goes on to explain that there are tools to help a user avoid the cruft. What Oleg is missing is that we all agree there is cruft out there. The point at which an article is not cruft is hazy but we all agree that it is out there. What I would like to see is a moderator who has a good idea of what most people consider cruft. That way, only one person has to wade through the garbage, as opposed to all of us. As to whether this inhibits someone's freedom of speech, there is such a thing as disturbing the peace. Through moderation, a person who thinks he has an important point to make, WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE FLAME HIS POINT THROUGH will have an incentive to keep his posting in line with (at least) the minimum guidelines of the group. ( Hallelujah ;-) -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/27/88)
In article <7203@gryphon.CTS.COM> oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >Such "standards" will violate the basic freedom of speech previously enjoyed >by the NET. In the last 4.5 years I have been on the NET news groups have >been able to establish their own conduct and language guidelines and have >managed to deal with the unavoidable periodic disruptions... The net has changed, and continues to change. Speaking as someone who's been on the net for 7.5 years, it is a mistake to think that mechanisms which cope adequately at one time will suffice for all time. The net's problems are steadily getting worse. "`Freedom of speech' means that most postings are worth what their author paid to post them." -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu