harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (11/19/86)
Keywords: Someone using the following name, userid and institution "rathmann@brahms.berkeley.EDU (Really Michael Ellis) Organization: 2-3:30PM, tuesdays and thursdays" wrote to sci.lang: > you have shit-for-brains... This is all horse manure... > you are blowing your hot air out the wrong orifice... > Paperboy wanted to handle Fecal Heights and surrounding vicinity... > get her ass up here... don't waste your foul breath telling me... > male chauvinist pricks... but THEY sure as hell left THEIR crap all > over the place... go shove where the sun doesn't shine... Utter crap. I find it astonishing that such an obviously disturbed individual has access to an account at brahms.berkeley.EDU, let alone the news net. If the net is to evolve into the respectable forum many of us hope it will become, there must be a way of blocking this sort of misuse. Not all groups can be moderated, but the unmoderated ones should still ensure that serious consequences overtake this sort of abuse. A copy of this will be sent to the system administrator at berkeley.EDU. I hope other net news users will also bring some collective pressure to bear on this sort of behavior. (Apologies to any of the above-named if someone else has been clandestinely misusing their names and accounts, but then they will no doubt want to be alerted so they can change passwords.) -- Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771 {allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (11/20/86)
In article <225@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: -> Someone using the following name, userid and institution -> "rathmann@brahms.berkeley.EDU (Really Michael Ellis) -> Organization: 2-3:30PM, tuesdays and thursdays" -> wrote to sci.lang: -> -> > you have shit-for-brains... This is all horse manure... -> > you are blowing your hot air out the wrong orifice... -> > Paperboy wanted to handle Fecal Heights and surrounding vicinity... -> > get her ass up here... don't waste your foul breath telling me... -> > male chauvinist pricks... but THEY sure as hell left THEIR crap all -> > over the place... go shove where the sun doesn't shine... Utter crap. -> -> I find it astonishing that such an obviously disturbed individual has -> access to an account at brahms.berkeley.EDU, let alone the news net. -> If the net is to evolve into the respectable forum many of us hope it -> will become, there must be a way of blocking this sort of misuse. Not -> all groups can be moderated, but the unmoderated ones should still -> ensure that serious consequences overtake this sort of abuse. The language you cite is a bit groady, but I just wanted you and others to know what we all do not agree; I consider the language you quote to be strongly worded, but I don't think that this sort of language should be forbidden from the network. It has its place in human speech. (If I were on that machine, I'd ask the person why they used such language anyway). -> A copy of this -> will be sent to the system administrator at berkeley.EDU. Whatever my feelings are, this is exactly what you should do to protest a posting that you think should be discouraged from the net. The system adminstrator at brahms.berkeley.EDU is in the most powerful position regarding who is permitted to use Usenet there, and that is where the authority should lie. He who runs the machine, runs Usenet, as far as each site is concerned. -> I hope -> other net news users will also bring some collective pressure to bear -> on this sort of behavior. It is not unreasonable to appeal to the opinions of others to get support for what you feel is right. Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc Subject: Re: Abuses of the net Summary: Date: Wed Nov 19 23:18:53 PST 1986 Expires: References: <225@mind.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Amdahl Corp, UTS Products Group Keywords: In article <225@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: -> Someone using the following name, userid and institution -> "rathmann@brahms.berkeley.EDU (Really Michael Ellis) -> Organization: 2-3:30PM, tuesdays and thursdays" -> wrote to sci.lang: -> -> > you have shit-for-brains... This is all horse manure... -> > you are blowing your hot air out the wrong orifice... -> > Paperboy wanted to handle Fecal Heights and surrounding vicinity... -> > get her ass up here... don't waste your foul breath telling me... -> > male chauvinist pricks... but THEY sure as hell left THEIR crap all -> > over the place... go shove where the sun doesn't shine... Utter crap. -> -> I find it astonishing that such an obviously disturbed individual has -> access to an account at brahms.berkeley.EDU, let alone the news net. The language is rather extreme, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the writer were mentally ill, nor do I (yet) question their right to use the net. No matter, what *I* think or you think doesn't matter anything so much as what the System Administrator there says. -> If the net is to evolve into the respectable forum many of us hope it -> will become, there must be a way of blocking this sort of misuse. Yes, there is: in the worst possible case, you can stop accepting or forwarding news for brahms.berkeley.EDU, and other site whose users offend you and their administrator does not control it. Those who tolerate it will continue to receive and distribute it. -> A copy of this -> will be sent to the system administrator at berkeley.EDU. I hope -> other net news users will also bring some collective pressure to bear -> on this sort of behavior. Whatever my opinion, I think this is the right way to call on it: tell the sys. admin. what's going on, and ask them to control it. But be prepared that the sys. admin. may choose not to control it. -- Gordon A. Moffett {whatever}!amdahl!gam ~ And each day I learn just a little bit more ~ ~ I don't know why but I do know what for... ~ -- [ The opinions expressed, if any, do not represent Amdahl Corporation ]
jordan@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (11/22/86)
Stevan Harnad <harnad@mind.UUCP> writes:
Someone using the following name, userid and institution
"rathmann@brahms.berkeley.EDU (Really Michael Ellis)
Organization: 2-3:30PM, tuesdays and thursdays"
wrote to sci.lang:
" [ bad no-no words ] "
I find it astonishing that such an obviously disturbed
individual has access to an account at brahms.berkeley.EDU, let
alone the news net.
Really? I'm not surprised at all ... I'd say there's a lot of
obviously disturbed individuals on brahms ...
A copy of this will be sent to the system administrator at
berkeley.EDU.
If you're going to make a point about it, don't send it to the admin at
Berkeley.EDU (aka, "ucbvax") since he really doesn't have anything to
do with the site brahms ... I would send it to the admin on brahms ...
there are probably 6 major news sites at Berkeley, each serving a
different part of the electronic community via NNTP ... the best way
to reach the news admin is to see which NNTP site is responsible for
their feed (i.e., look at the Sender: line of the offending article ...
for brahms-ians, it's cartan -- part of the math/stat group of
machines) -- don't just send blindly to ucbvax.
I don't think that kind of language should be censored, but I do
think if you are offended by it you should make that clear to the
poster. Telling the system admin right away is pretty skeevy.
/jordanreid@decwrl.UUCP (11/23/86)
I must say that I am also appalled. Everyone knows that "shit-for-brains" is an adjective, and so the sentence "You have shit-for-brains" is grammatically incorrect. The correct way to say it is to leave the hyphens out: "You have shit for brains".
jordan@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (11/24/86)
Brian Reid <reid@decwrl.UUCP> writes:
I must say that I am also appalled. Everyone knows that
"shit-for-brains" is an adjective, and so the sentence "You
have shit-for-brains" is grammatically incorrect. The correct
way to say it is to leave the hyphens out: "You have shit for
brains".
What's the difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You don't
have shit for brains" ...? I'm not sure ... *ugh*
/jordanscb@briar.UUCP (11/24/86)
Even thought net.flame is gone, the net still exists and people who claim it being a professional organization are only claiming what they want usenet to be. This ain't IEEE, it's one of the few anarchys that works! I for one am not offended by use of such words as "shit-for-brains", its usage can be quite effective and useful at times. You're free to complain to the SA for brahms, but you should probably deal with the individual posting the offending material, instead of whining to the rest of the net about how YOU don't like x@y.z.q because he uses dirty words. You're just what the world needs, another net.cop. Grow up, remember, we're all professionals here... -- USENET- .... Sea'n Byrne 6 years . /\ . Philips Laboratories/NAPC of anarchy . / \ . (914) 945-6242 freedom . / \ . and --/------\-- chaos. /. .\ / . . . \
mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) (11/24/86)
Jordan Hayes writes: >What's the difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You don't >have shit for brains" ...? I'm not sure ... *ugh* > >/jordan Simple. "You have shit for brains" means that your brain is made primarily of shit. "You don't have shit for brains" means that your brain is made primarily of things other than shit. The second of the two is, of course, much less definitive, and could, therefore, be a compliment or an insult. I suppose you could take it however you want to. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mark Steven Jeghers - the living incarnation of "Deep-Thought" | | ("You won't like the answer ... you didn't ask it very well.") | | | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,lll-lcc,lll-crg}|{dual,ptsfa}!cogent!mark | | ^^^^^^-------recommended------^^^^^ | | | | Cogent Software Solutions can not be held responsible for anything said | | by the above person since they have no control over him in the first place | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (11/25/86)
In article <78@cogent.UUCP> mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) writes: >Jordan Hayes writes: >>What's the difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You don't >>have shit for brains" ...? I'm not sure ... *ugh* >> >Simple. "You have shit for brains" means that your brain is made primarily >of shit. "You don't have shit for brains" means that your brain is made >primarily of things other than shit. The second of the two is, of course, >much less definitive, and could, therefore, be a compliment or an insult. It was always my sense that the latter implies that the subject has less than shit for brains, as in "You don't even have shit for brains," and is therefore unquestionably derogatory. But then I hesitate to mention what I've got for brains ... -- Melinda Shore ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor University of Chicago Computation Center XASSHOR@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet
amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir) (11/25/86)
Comparing the volume on this group before & after this subject was introduced, there can be only one conclusion: NEVER YELL SH*T IN A CROWDED NEWSGROUP! Long live the K command! -- Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel (011-972) 52-522261 amos%nsta@nsc 34.48'E 32.10'N
msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (11/25/86)
Amos Shapir (amos%nsta@nsc) writes: > Comparing the volume on this group before & after this subject was introduced, > there can be only one conclusion: NEVER YELL SH*T IN A CROWDED NEWSGROUP! And thus we have come full circle back to the original complaint! -- And let's leave it there and not go round again -- Mark Brader
sean@ukma.UUCP (11/26/86)
In article <78@cogent.UUCP> mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) writes: >Simple. "You have shit for brains" means that your brain is made primarily >of shit. "You don't have shit for brains" means that your brain is made >primarily of things other than shit. The second of the two is, of course, >much less definitive, and could, therefore, be a compliment or an insult. >I suppose you could take it however you want to. The second is actually an insult. Think of the phrase "We don't have shit". What this means is that we don't have anything, not even shit. I think of "You don't have shit for brains" as being in the same context. The person who is the recipient of the insult not only doesn't have brains, he doesn't even have shit for brains. In this respect, the insult is even worse than "You have shit for brains". Sean -- =========================================================================== Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: sean@ms.uky.csnet ARPA: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET
kvm@basser.oz (Karlos Vladimir Mauvtaque) (11/27/86)
In article <16450@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jordan@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Jordan Hayes) writes: >Brian Reid <reid@decwrl.UUCP> writes: > > Everyone knows that "shit-for-brains" is an adjective ... > >What's the difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You don't >have shit for brains" ...? I'm not sure ... *ugh* This reminds me of a T-shirt I once saw. It was being worn by a man riding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Under a large Harley-Davidson logo was the following statement: ``If you ain't a Harley rider, you ain't shit.'' -Karlos
jrc@ritcv.UUCP (11/28/86)
[nibble, nibble, nibble... ]
Hey! How about cooling it. This whole thing is now completely out of hand,
and I seriously doubt that many opinions are going to be changed. I find this
fast becoming tedious and boring, and I can only shake my head when I think of
the cost of this near useless traffic on the net.
j.r. {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jrc
"Go ahead and flame me; I have a large disk allocation!"