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
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (11/20/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Distribution: Keywords: I am directing followups to news.misc only. news.admin, Stevan, is for discussion of day to day running the software sort of stuff, not flames about the net itself. And posting your article twice, instead of cross posting, makes it hard to track down and respond to. In article <225@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >>[a dozen or so rude comments deleted] >I find it astonishing that such an obviously disturbed individual has >access to an account at brahms.berkeley.EDU, Really? Ohmygosh, how did that happen? I guess that modem in People's Park wasn't such a good idea after all. > let alone the news net. You are a complete net.neophyte. I recommend you try e-mail first to the person involved. I have absolutely no idea what was going through Michael's mind at the time, and his "shit-for-brains" seemed entirely uncalled for, but the rest of his comments seemed fairly routine fare. Considering that Michael made reference to net.debate from THREE YEARS back, it's clear that something is going on that you don't know about. For all you know the person involved called Michael incredibly rude things back then, and he's just returning the favor. I wouldn't know. Read a little more carefully before calling someone "obviously disturbed." At least if you plan to have your complaint considered seriously. Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd ban people like you for crossposting to 10 groups without putting in a followup. Instead I sent you e-mail asking you not to do so. I never got a response, but then I've never seen you do it again. Posting to inappropriate groups in the first place, like news.admin, isn't too net.friendly an idea either. >If the net is to evolve into the respectable forum many of us hope it >will become, Hahahaha. This isn't talk.bizarre. > A copy of this >will be sent to the system administrator at berkeley.EDU. I think such e-mail, especially from neophytes, is considered boring. > I hope >other net news users will also bring some collective pressure to bear >on this sort of behavior. Well, this net news user is going to call Michael a bad boy the next time he sees him. (While we are still in sci.lang, does anyone care to tell me how to phrase such third person sentences smoothly and correctly? Be sure to fix the followup.) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Without NNTP, the brahms gang itself would be impossible. --Erik E Fair
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 ]
harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (11/20/86)
In article <378@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) writes: > I have absolutely no idea what was going through > Michael's mind at the time, and his "shit-for-brains" seemed entirely > uncalled for, but the rest of his comments seemed fairly routine fare... > ...Read a little more carefully before calling someone "obviously disturbed." > At least if you plan to have your complaint considered seriously. The rest of the fairly routine fare, for those who don't recall it, was this (I regret that it got more care than it deserved): >> 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. > Considering that Michael made reference to net.debate from THREE YEARS > back, it's clear that something is going on that you don't know about. > For all you know the person involved called Michael incredibly rude > things back then, and he's just returning the favor. I wouldn't know. Whatever is going on, I don't want to know. And abusive rounds of "returning the favor" like this are just what I think some collective constraints should be used to stop, for the sake of the archival value and social responsibility of the net. > Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd ban people like you for crossposting > to 10 groups without putting in a followup. Instead I sent you e-mail > asking you not to do so. I never got a response, but then I've never > seen you do it again. Posting to inappropriate groups in the first > place, like news.admin, isn't too net.friendly an idea either. There is evidently a difference of opinion about what constitutes an abuse of the net. (I was, by the way, indeed a net-neophyte in my first posting, and, as you note, I did act on your message from then on, although I did not reply to it, because it was rude. I imagine that redundant posting by neophytes is a predictable initial error [perhaps some software similar to the software that blocks excessive requoting in a reply could be used to constrain new users' naive zeal], but is the rude style also to be a hallmark of the experienced net user, along with its apparent sympathy for pathological abusiveness? I suspect that the glib scatologs and scatologophiles are going to be more vocal in their views on this, so the sample of responses will be a biased one. I hold no brief for the "moral majority" -- with which these objections will no doubt be equated by the irate scatologophiles -- but might I encourage those who simply value the language and prefer politeness to make their voices heard too?) > >If the net is to evolve into the respectable forum many of us hope it > >will become, > > Hahahaha. This isn't talk.bizarre. No comment. -- Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771 {allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (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. 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.) Sigh. The quoted material looked sort of odd there for a while, until I realized that Mr. Harnad had merely abstracted the parts that he didn't like out of an interesting, lengthy article of 122 lines about gender distinctions in natural languages. I then noticed that the person to whom the the quoted remarks were directed were in fact Mr. Harnad himself, who seemed to be getting the worse of the argument. Hardly a disinterested observer. Mr. Harnad also apparently failed to notice that at least two of the objectionable fragments above, "Paperboy wanted to handle Fecal Heights..." and "get her ass up here" were not statements of rathmann@brahms but were in fact quoted example material meant to illustrate gender distinctions in utterances. rathmann@brahms's rhetoric of argumentation is not a style I personally practice, and Mr. Harnad is certainly entitled to complain to anyone he wishes, including the Usenet administrator at Berkeley, but it all seems rather a tempest in a teapot, no? Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb
harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/86)
In article <21023@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) responds to a sample of scatalogical remarks I had excerpted from a reply I received in sci.lang as follows: > I then noticed that the > person to whom the the quoted remarks were directed were in fact Mr. > Harnad himself, who seemed to be getting the worse of the argument. Mr Berch should read that posting again, if he has the stomach for it. He will notice that the worst of it is directed at some other poor unfortunate rather than myself. Not that it makes any difference. As to who was getting the worst of the argument, I wouldn't know, since I do not read such abusive material. The only reason I took the trouble to excerpt and post the sample was a hope that some negative publicity might help to curb such abuses, and that others might be encouraged to take similar steps. As I suggested in a prior reply, I am not a vigilante or a prude or a spokeseman for the Moral Majority. I think it's common sense that posting such material shouldn't be free of consequences, any more than publishing it in a newspaper or displaying it with a sky-writer would be. There's no reason the net should allow itself to become a latrine wall for the acting out of a few borderline personalities. -- Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771 {allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) (11/21/86)
> 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 > > [etc] > > Sigh. The quoted material looked sort of odd there for a while, until > I realized that Mr. Harnad had merely abstracted the parts that he > didn't like out of an interesting, lengthy article of 122 lines about > gender distinctions in natural languages. I then noticed that the > person to whom the the quoted remarks were directed were in fact Mr. > Harnad himself, who seemed to be getting the worse of the argument. > Hardly a disinterested observer. I subscribed to sci.lang just to see what the offending article was. Mr. Harnad has taken a very informative and interesting article and quoted it grossly out of context. I can't believe that in this day and age people are still so uptight about four-letter words. Perhaps someone should write a filter for rn that allows people who are easily offended to have all dirty words pre-screened for them. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO. (The above is food for the NSA line eater.)
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (11/21/86)
After reading Steve's original posting (cited in the references line), I thought it would be obvious to most people that the sort of language Steve objected to was a gross violation of net.etiquette. Now that I've seen a few days of the followups, I'm astonished that this doesn't seem clear at all. In my opinion, the net does not need or deserve the sort of traffic that Steve was citing. Aside from the usual stuff about making the sender (rathmann@brahms.berkeley.edu) look like a jerk, it reflects poorly on all the users at Berkeley. [What, they allow that kind of stuff out there??] I won't talk to people who argue like that. I don't want to see this stuff on my system. I certainly don't want to pay to transport it! Someone, preferably the SA at brahms.berkeley, needs to explain the basics of manners to whoever posted the original. I cast my vote for a reasonably polite (not flame-proof, just polite) net. David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon US Army Artificial Intelligence Center PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai@brl UUCP: ...!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin
mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) (11/21/86)
In article <9516@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: >> In article <225@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >> > >> > > 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 subscribed to sci.lang just to see what the offending article was. >Mr. Harnad has taken a very informative and interesting article and >quoted it grossly out of context. > >I can't believe that in this day and age people are still so uptight about >four-letter words. Perhaps someone should write a filter for rn that >allows people who are easily offended to have all dirty words pre-screened >for them. Well, Ed, the thing is that foul language is still (and always will be) offensive to many people. This is perhaps the reason it is called "foul". Ok, so I'm working in Bert and Ernie mode here - perhaps a little more specific explanation would be in order. Some of the tendancies of "dirty-talk" is that 1) someone or something is equated to something vile and filthy (e.g. shit-for-brains, Fecal Heights), 2) human sexuality is depicted in a degrading way (we don't need any examples of this, I'm sure), or 3) God is dealt with in a mocking fashion (which is not a big deal if you are athiest, agnostic, etc, but it is to others). Granted, these will largely depend on personal views and tastes, but there is a generality to be drawn: the intent is to take something that is revered or valued and degrade it. This is, thus, a sort of a disrespect, both to the thing being degraded (sexuality, diety, whatever) and the person being flamed (in the even that it is in a flame-context). I was always taught that the absence of such vocabulary was an indication of a wiser person. I suppose that is a sweeping generalization, but I am reluctant to dismiss the idea altogether. I don't claim to have a perfectly clean vocabulary myself, but, at the same time, I try not to go off the deep end in the hostile fashion that the original poster seems to have done. I interpret that as sheer hatred, thus I find it offensive. In closing, let me suggest that "in this day and age" we are not really any smarter than those who came before us. We like to *tell* ourselves that we are wiser (or more open, or more fair, etc), but sometimes I must suspect that we smell better, and that's about it. We ought not to discard a point of view or principle *just* because of it's antiquity. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (11/21/86)
In article <228@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > In article <21023@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) responds > to a sample of scatalogical remarks I had excerpted from a reply I > received in sci.lang as follows: > > > I then noticed that the > > person to whom the the quoted remarks were directed were in fact Mr. > > Harnad himself, who seemed to be getting the worse of the argument. > > Mr Berch should read that posting again, if he has the stomach for it. > He will notice that the worst of it is directed at some other poor > unfortunate rather than myself. Not that it makes any difference. Indeed, but you seem to be fixated on the "scatology" of the remarks, rather than their content or rhetorical stance. You also apparently failed to notice (again) that at least part of what you object to was example material dealing with the subject matter (sexism in language). I found the original article interesting and challenging. (I don't know rathamnn@brahms, by the way, so it's not a matter of personal defense.) I had no trouble "stomach"ing it at all. I don't necessarily agree with all that he says, but that's irrelevant. Why do you think the proper level of discourse on Usenet should be the common denominator that offends no one? This is a highly pluralistic internetwork, with (based on Brian Reid's measurement programs) over a hundred thousand participants. A fair percentage of the material is going to offend SOMEONE, whether because of four-letter words, or scatology, or controversial political/religious/cultural views. Should all these be supressed as well? It is a very large leap from "I don't like what rathmann@brahms wrote; it offended me, and I will therefore not read such material" to "rathmann@brahms must be a disturbed individual; how did he get an account at Berkeley? All this abusive material must be suppressed." The former seems quite reasonable. The latter is ridiculous. > [...] As I suggested in a prior reply, I > am not a vigilante or a prude or a spokeseman for the Moral Majority. Fine. Then the proper thing to do is hit the 'n' key, or create an rn KILL file. You may decide for yourself what you like to read. If you are a Usenet site administrator, you may decide (under whatever limitations your institution may prescribe) what newsgroups to accept and feed, and what your users may have access to and post. But you DON'T have the right to dictate to the community at large what the proper level of taste and inoffensiveness should be in order to meet your personal standards. That, sir, is what the Moral Majority tries to do. > I think it's common sense that posting such material shouldn't be > free of consequences, any more than publishing it in a newspaper or > displaying it with a sky-writer would be. What sort of consequences do you mean? If you have been defamed, by all means sue for libel. Or try the obscenity statutes of your jurisdiction. Given the substance of the article involved, you are not likely to get far in either case. I don't know what newspapers you read, but there are many in which rathmann@brahms's article would be considered bland by comparison., and publish quite nicely "without consequences". If you can't stand the heat, by all means stay out of the kitchen. Michael C. Berch Newws/mail co-administrator, styx ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb
gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) (11/22/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <228@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >As I suggested in a prior reply, I >am not a vigilante or a prude or a spokeseman for the Moral Majority. > You sound to me to be a bit on the prissy side, which I admit is not necessarily the same as prudishness. I *do* think you are a net vigilante. Your first response was to get the person who offended you removed from the net. If I followed this logic, I should try to get you removed from the net, since I find your attitude to be extraordinarily offensive. I don't like censors, self-appointed or otherwise; and the person you flammed has been posting to the net for years without any problem. Of course he used to be the SA where he worked, so I guess as a sort of net demi-god he was a little hard for prissy censors to remove. >I think it's common sense that posting such material shouldn't be >free of consequences, any more than publishing it in a newspaper or >displaying it with a sky-writer would be. There's no reason the net >should allow itself to become a latrine wall for the acting out of a >few borderline personalities. I think your remarks about Mr. Ellis are in extremely poor taste. Perhaps Mr. Ellis should sue you and Princeton University for libel and character assassination. After all, posting vicious personal slander (Mr. Ellis is not mentally unbalanced, you will be relieved to learn) shouldn't be free of consequences, any more than publishing lies about him in a newspaper should be. I think you owe Michael Ellis an apology. But I won't try to kick you off the net until you give him one; since I believe the net is big enough even for the self-appointed censors. I hope I am right. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "Last week in a dream I gave a fellow my shirt buttons to differentiate and the fellow ran away with them." -- Engels
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.
/jordanandrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (11/23/86)
In article <9516@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: >I can't believe that in this day and age people are still so uptight about >four-letter words. Perhaps someone should write a filter for rn that >allows people who are easily offended to have all dirty words pre-screened >for them. I don't consider myself uptight about (quote-unquote) "foul language", being likely to use it myself when upset enough, but there's a definite difference between an occasional use of invective to make a statement more emphatic ("hell, yes!"), inject some emotional content ("you heartless bastard, how can you say that?") make the tone more casual ("another damn I/O bug"), or even as part of a colloquialism that is no longer shocking ("puttin' on mah shit-kickin' boots"), as compared with gratuitous, automatic, excessive use, or use in personal attacks. Frankly, it's tiresome to run across postings from people who are using the net to "act out" or vent their emotions inappropriately. Just as it is wearing to read postings in all caps, or ones where every sentence ends with an exclamation point, seeing too much invective decreases the effect (and speeds up the "n" key reflex!). I don't want to run this into the ground (being more of a free-wheeler than a bureaucrat), but a little courtesy goes a long way in public discussion. And as the guide for new net.users says, you never know when someone reading what you've posted might be across the desk from you when next you go job-hunting! Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "...like a song that's born to soar the sky..." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|hp-pcd|hpfcla|hpda|noscvax|gould9|sdcsvax}!hp-sdd!andrea UUCP : {cbosgd|allegra|decvax|gatech|sun|tektronix}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea ARPA : hp-sdd!andrea@nosc.arpa CSNET : hp-sdd!andrea@hplabs.csnet USnail: 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
reid@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".
harnad@mind.UUCP (11/23/86)
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore CA asks: > Why do you think the proper level of discourse on Usenet should be the > common denominator that offends no one? This is a highly pluralistic > internetwork... A fair percentage of the material is > going to offend SOMEONE, whether because of four-letter words, > or scatology, or controversial political/religious/cultural views. > Should all these be supressed as well? The issue in this case was not mere offensiveness, but abusiveness -- ad hominem coprolalia, to be precise. I think the extract (which has by now been quoted often enough) speaks for itself. I can't help thinking that those who say it was quoted out of context must either be joking or have had their senses numbed by exposure to too much behavior of this sort. The only conceivable context that could have been filled in around the extracts I quoted that would have justified them would have been if they were themselves quotes from someone else's abuses of someone else and the Net. As to plurality and controversy, in place of an inclination to suppress it, you might say I had a certain professional interest and involvement in fostering it. Ad hominem abuse, on the other hand, I'm rather committed to combatting. > You may decide for yourself what you like to read... you DON'T > have the right to dictate to the community at large what the proper > level of taste and inoffensiveness should be in order to meet your > personal standards. That, sir, is what the Moral Majority tries to do. Who's dictating? I have neither the power nor the desire to dictate. I simply did what you profess to be defending. I aired my own reactions to what I viewed as unconscionable behavior. It has several times been gumblingly suggested by way of response that *I* am the one who ought to be taken off the Net, presumably for venturing to express my views against someone's ad hominem coprolalia. It's an odd state of affairs when people can view themselves as the righteous defenders of free speech when they they rush to the defence of someone's right to tell someone else she has "shit-for-brains" while clamouring that someone else ought to be deprived of his right to denounce it. > What sort of consequences do you mean [when you write:] >> I think it's common sense that posting such material shouldn't be >> free of consequences, any more than publishing it in a newspaper or >> displaying it with a sky-writer would be. I had a few in mind. One was that those, like myself, who feel that such behavior represents a grave abuse of the Net, should make their views known, rather than, by default, encouraging people who are so inclined to act out in this way without any expectation of public consequences. I also wished to draw the case to the attention of the relevant authorities so that if (as I hoped) there were rules against such behavior, they might be enforced. [As it happens, the account in question was shut down because the individual who had posted the message was not the authorized user of the account, and that violated the rules of the system; so, as the system administrator indicated, the local matter is "moot."] Finally, I wanted to serve open notice that one person, at least, was prepared neither to contribute to the impression that one has no choice, when someone else's private anomalies are rudely forced on one in public, but to walk away from it in silence, leaving the perpetator to repeat such antisocial antics on others, nor was he prepared to be drawn into any back-and-forth round of responding in kind. -- Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771 {allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (11/23/86)
In article <399@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) writes: > [deleted] > I think you owe Michael Ellis an apology. But I won't try to kick you >off the net until you give him one; since I believe the net is big enough >even for the self-appointed censors. I hope I am right. Or rather, let us hope that the network is *too* big for the self-appointed censors. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!usenet usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
rathmann@cartan.UUCP (11/23/86)
Va negvpyr <231@zvaq.HHPC> uneanq@zvaq.HHPC (Cevaprgba Cevffobl) jevgrf: >Gur vffhr va guvf pnfr jnf abg zrer bssrafvirarff, ohg nohfvirarff -- >nq ubzvarz pbcebynyvn, gb or cerpvfr. Nj cbbe onol. Zbzzl abg ohl lbh fbzr ehoore wnzzvrf ynfg gvzr lbh jrag ubzrfvr jbzrfvr? Qvq lbh sbetrg gb chg ba lbhe qvncref jura lbh fvtarq ba? Urrurr. >V guvax gur rkgenpg (juvpu unf ol abj >orra dhbgrq bsgra rabhtu) fcrnxf sbe vgfrys. Bs pbhefr lbh qb. Lbh'ir tbg fuvg sbe oenvaf, nf lbh'ir orra znxvat nohaqnagyl pyrne. Urrurr. >V pna'g uryc guvaxvat gung gubfr >jub fnl vg jnf dhbgrq bhg bs pbagrkg zhfg rvgure or wbxvat be unir unq gurve >frafrf ahzorq ol rkcbfher gb gbb zhpu orunivbe bs guvf fbeg. Jryy, lbh'ir tbg n cerggl yvzvgrq oenva, V'z jvyyvat gb tenag lbh gung. Ybgf bs crbcyr guvax bgurejvfr, naq lbh pna bayl fnl gung gurve rvgure yvnef be fghcvq. Wrrm, jung na vafhygvat naq nohfvir yvggyr nffubyr lbh ner. Urrurr. >Gur bayl >pbaprvinoyr pbagrkg gung pbhyq unir orra svyyrq va nebhaq gur rkgenpgf >V dhbgrq gung jbhyq unir whfgvsvrq gurz jbhyq unir orra vs gurl jrer >gurzfryirf dhbgrf sebz fbzrbar ryfr'f nohfrf bs fbzrbar ryfr naq gur Arg. Gur bayl pbaprvinoyr pbagrkg? Frm jub? Gur pbtavgvir ratvarre jub jebgr gur NV cebtenz gung lbh hfr sbe n zvaq? Jurer qb gurl trg nohfvir "V nz abg nohfvir" zbebaf yvxr lbh sebz naljnl? Yrnxvat frcgvp gnaxf? Urrurr. >Nf gb cyhenyvgl naq pbagebirefl, va cynpr bs na vapyvangvba gb >fhccerff vg, lbh zvtug fnl V unq n pregnva cebsrffvbany vagrerfg naq >vaibyirzrag va sbfgrevat vg. V fhccbfr jr'er fhccbfrq gb gunax bhe yhpxl fgnef sbe gung. Vs lbh qvqa'g fubj hc, guvf arg jbhyq unir tebhaq gb n unyg ynfg jrrx. Urrurr. >Nq ubzvarz nohfr, ba gur bgure unaq, V'z >engure pbzzvggrq gb pbzonggvat. Lbh ratntr va vg lbhefrys cerggl ybhqyl. Naq fghcvqyl, V znl nqq. Urrurr. >V unir arvgure gur cbjre abe gur qrfver gb qvpgngr. Lbh qb unir gur cbjre naq qrfver gb sneg gubhtu. Urrurr. >V >fvzcyl qvq jung lbh cebsrff gb or qrsraqvat. V nverq zl bja ernpgvbaf >gb jung V ivrjrq nf hapbafpvbanoyr orunivbe. Nverq? Nf va oebxr jvaq? V gubhtug fb. Urrurr. >Vg unf frireny gvzrf orra >thzoyvatyl fhttrfgrq ol jnl bs erfcbafr gung *V* nz gur bar jub bhtug gb >or gnxra bss gur Arg, cerfhznoyl sbe iraghevat gb rkcerff zl ivrjf ntnvafg >fbzrbar'f nq ubzvarz pbcebynyvn. Jung n cvffcbbe yvne lbh ner. Vg'f orra fhttrfgrq gung lbh or gnxra bss orpnhfr lbh ner fb erznexnoyl naq ulfgrevpnyyl ehqr nobhg vg, jvgu ab frafr bs pbafpvbhapr bgure guna lbhe bja zbebavp cevffvarff. Urrurr. >Vg'f na bqq fgngr bs nssnvef jura crbcyr >pna ivrj gurzfryirf nf gur evtugrbhf qrsraqref bs serr fcrrpu jura gurl >gurl ehfu gb gur qrsrapr bs fbzrbar'f evtug gb gryy fbzrbar ryfr fur unf >"fuvg-sbe-oenvaf" juvyr pynzbhevat gung fbzrbar ryfr bhtug gb or qrcevirq >bs uvf evtug gb qrabhapr vg. Qrabhapr vg, lrf. Or n pbzcyrgr fuvg-sbe-oenvaf nffubyr nobhg vg, ab. Urrurr. >V unq n srj va zvaq. Bar jnf gung gubfr, yvxr zlfrys, jub srry gung >fhpu orunivbe ercerfragf n tenir nohfr bs gur Arg, fubhyq znxr gurve ivrjf >xabja, Jub tvirf n qnza nobhg lbhe ivrjf? V org n qbmra zbaxrlf cvffvat sbe n gubhfnaq lrnef pbhyq pbzr hc jvgu orggre ivrjf guna lbh'ir tbg. Urrurr. >engure guna, ol qrsnhyg, rapbhentvat crbcyr jub ner fb vapyvarq >gb npg bhg va guvf jnl jvgubhg nal rkcrpgngvba bs choyvp pbafrdhraprf. Naq abj, sbe fbzrguvat pbzcyrgryl qvssrerag. Ynqvrf naq Tragyrzra, Nffubyrf naq Srpnysnprf, sbe gur svefg gvzr ba nal arg, V cerfrag gb lbh gur Fgrina "Cevaprgba Cevffobl" Uneanaq gurzr fbat: Fuvg-sbe-oenvaf, fuvg-sbe-oenvaf, Jung nz V tbvat gb qb, Abj gung V'ir tbg fuvg-sbe-oenvaf? Zl zbzzvr jnf n svfu, ohg zl qnqqvr pbhyqa'g fjvz! Ub! Fuvg-sbe-oenvaf, fuvg-sbe-oenvaf, Jung nz V tbvat gb rng, Abj gung V'ir tbg fuvg-sbe-oenvaf? Zl fvfgre unq ab haqrejrne, fnirq ure ynhaqel ovyy! Ub! Fuvg-sbe-oenvaf, fuvg-sbe-oenvaf, Jung nz V tbvat gb cbfg, Abj gung V'ir tbg fuvg-sbe-oenvaf? BU AB! JUNG QVQ V WHFG QB? JUNG'F TBVAT GB UNCCRA GB ZR? Ba gur vafgnag ercynl fyb-pnz, gurer jr frr gur nafjre, ybhq naq pyrne: C H O Y V P P B A F R D H R A P R F Urrurr. >V nyfb jvfurq gb qenj gur pnfr gb gur nggragvba bs gur eryrinag >nhgubevgvrf fb gung vs (nf V ubcrq) gurer jrer ehyrf ntnvafg fhpu orunivbe, >gurl zvtug or rasbeprq. Jryy, gurer nva'g. Lbh yhpxrq bhg. Urrurr. >[Nf vg unccraf, gur nppbhag va dhrfgvba jnf fuhg qbja >orpnhfr gur vaqvivqhny jub unq cbfgrq gur zrffntr jnf abg gur nhgubevmrq >hfre bs gur nppbhag, naq gung ivbyngrq gur ehyrf bs gur flfgrz; fb, nf gur >flfgrz nqzvavfgengbe vaqvpngrq, gur ybpny znggre vf "zbbg."] Qnzarq yhpxl guvat gbb. Fvapr V qba'g rkvfg nalzber, V pna fnl jungrire gur shpx V jnag naq abg gerzoyr va zl obbgvrf. Lbh ubjrire ner tbvat gb fhssre harkcrpgrq objry ceboyrzf nf ybat nf lbh ernq gur arg. Fb trg fbzr ehoore cnwnznf arkg gvzr nebhaq. Gurl ner n ybg rnfvre gb svaq gura n frafr bs uhzbe. Urrurr. >Svanyyl, V >jnagrq gb freir bcra abgvpr gung bar crefba, ng yrnfg, jnf cercnerq >arvgure gb pbagevohgr gb gur vzcerffvba gung bar unf ab pubvpr, jura >fbzrbar ryfr'f cevingr nabznyvrf ner ehqryl sbeprq ba bar va choyvp, Lbh org. Nf ybat nf lbh fcernq gung frys-evtugrbhf ubefr znaher gung lbh pnyy "erfrnepu" va fpv.ynat, V'yy or gurer fgnaqvat hc sbe nyy hf Fgnasbeq Onaq sna pyho zrzoref. >orypu< (|) * uvp * Urrurr. >ohg gb >jnyx njnl sebz vg va fvyrapr, yrnivat gur crecrgngbe gb ercrng fhpu >nagvfbpvny nagvpf ba bguref, abe jnf ur cercnerq gb or qenja vagb nal >onpx-naq-sbegu ebhaq bs erfcbaqvat va xvaq. Uhu? Jub nfxrq lbh gb erfcbaq va xvaq? Vs gurer jnf nal qbhog orsber, vg'f cerggl pyrne gung lbh'ir tbg gur fuvg lbh unir sbe oenvaf vf pbzvat bhg bs nyy bs lbhe obqvyl bevsvprf fvzhygnarbhfyl. Ohg gurer'f bayl bar guvat pbzvat bhg bs nal bs zl bevsvprf ng gur zbzrag: Urrurr. -zvpunry ... gur rcvfgrzbybtvpny nanepuvfg unf ab pbzchpgvba gb qrsraq gur zbfg gevgr, be gur zbfg bhgentrbhf fgngrzrag. ... ur znl hfr ernfba, rzbgvba, evqvphyr, na `nggvghqr bs frevbhf pbaprea' naq jungrire bgure zrnaf unir orra vairagrq ol uhznaf gb trg gur orggre bs gurve sryybj zra. Uvf snibhevgr cnfgvzr vf gb pbashfr engvbanyvfgf ... Gurer vf ab ivrj, ubjrire `nofheq' be `vzzbeny', ur ershfrf gb pbafvqre be gb npg hcba, naq ab zrgubq vf ertneqrq nf vaqvfcrafnoyr. -Cnhy X Srlrenoraq "Ntnvafg Zrgubq" Ohg gur obhdhrg jnf guvf fgbel bs Znubbq'f va juvpu V nccrne V nccrne nf hcfrg ng univat orra qryvirerq fb rpbabzvpnyyl bs n cnpx bs oybbq eryngvbaf, abg gb zragvba gur gjb phagf vagb gur onetnva, gur bar sbe rire npphefrq gung rwrpgrq zr vagb guvf jbeyq naq gur bgure, vashaqvohyvsbez, va juvpu, chzcvat zl yvxrf, V gevrq gb gnxr zl eriratr. Gb gryy gur gehgu, yrg hf or ubarfg ng yrnfg, vg vf fbzr pbafvqrenoyr gvzr abj fvapr V ynfg xarj jung V jnf gnyxvat nobhg. Vg vf orpnhfr zl gubhtugf ner ryfrjurer. V nz gurersber sbetvira. Fb ybat nf bar'f gubhtugf ner fbzrjurer rirelguvat vf crezvggrq. Ba gura, jvgubhg zvftvivat, nf vs abguvat unq unccrarq. -Fnzhry O Orpxrgg "Gur Haanzrnoyr"
gsmith@brahms.UUCP (11/24/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <231@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >As to plurality and controversy, in place of an inclination to suppress >it, you might say I had a certain professional interest and involvement >in fostering it. Ad hominem abuse, on the other hand, I'm rather committed >to combating. Is this one of those subtlies of language which can be appreciated only by true language mavens? I get the impression that if you had said you were committed to combating ad hominem abuse, you would feel obligated. But since you are only "rather committed", you content yourself with denouncing it--and engaging in it. Or is calling someone "obviously dis- turbed" or a "borderline personality" not ad hominem abuse in your diction- ary (which I will gladly and humbly stipulate to be more professional than mine?) >Who's dictating? I have neither the power nor the desire to dictate. I >simply did what you profess to be defending. I would call this the lie outright, but I wouldn't want to fall into the deplorable habit of ad hominem abuse--I might loose your respect, and that I could not stand. But if you had merely written some e-mail, or posted a complaint or a flame, that would be one thing. Instead you tried (and succeeded) in getting your victim into trouble, and insisted on this debate in news.misc, rather than confining yourself to sci.lang as the rest of us would have. >I also wished to draw the case to the attention of the relevant author- >ities so that if (as I hoped) there were rules against such behavior, >they might be enforced. [As it happens, the account in question was >shut down because the individual who had posted the message was not the >authorized user of the account, and that violated the rules of the system; >so, as the system administrator indicated, the local matter is "moot."] Well, we are all happy to have such a good net.citizen with us. A "sea green incorruptible" such as yourself is the obvious choice to decide who next to send to the guillotine. For what it is worth (very little) Mr. Ellis did have authorization from jurgen@brahms (the owner of the account) to use his account--no doubt this was a violation of system rules (I don't know what the rules are) but he wasn't a hacker breaking in illegally. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "The *evident* character of this defective cognition of which mathematics is proud, and on which it plumes itself before philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the defectiveness of its stuff, and is therefore of a kind that philosophy must spurn." -- G. W. F. Hegel
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 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (11/24/86)
In article <226@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > ... I imagine that redundant posting by >neophytes is a predictable initial error ... > ... but is the rude style also >to be a hallmark of the experienced net user, along with its apparent >sympathy for pathological abusiveness? I am afraid that this effect is because the majority of "cool-headed" experienced users simply avoid the debate - it is not productive. I have to point out the similarity to a parlimentary body with over 50 members - unless you have something worthwhile to say on the current subject, the most EFFECTIVE technique is to say nothing. Unfortunately, this means that the "net hotheads" have a much higher profile. Believe me when I say that there is a large body of users who take the mostly-silent view, and refrain from comment to avoid "stirring the pot" unnecessarily
cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) (11/24/86)
I thought I'd stay out of this one since I didn't see the original sci.lang posting by ellis..... Not to mention that the resulting flame by harnad was a little too moral majority for my tastes.... a simple e-mail response back to the poster, and if offense was repeated, maybe to the sys admin.....but a public posting and on and on..... Then Mr. Ellis posted again. This time I read the whole posting (not to mention the gene ward smith rejoinders...) and I am convinced that some of the postings from brahms are getting out of hand. I don't mind the lanquage (i've been known to make a longshoreman blush) nor do I mind personal attacks when used/done appropriately.... But I DO MIND cluttering up this net and this newsgroup with pure bullshit, junk and crap... Big deal that ellis's last posting was rot13 - so what if it offends no one for language - it is STILL OFFENSIVE because it had several pages that had absolutely no content at all....Had he included only the last two paragraphs, I would have felt diffenrently. summary - I have no argument with the way you have expressed yourself - or that you did try - but that your content was well down in proportion to the length of your posting. If you must post content-less articles, please (user@brahms and harnad) go back to posting them in talk.bizarre where they belong (and are then worth something.....) -ed cetron center for engineering design univ of utah
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (11/24/86)
In article <120@hqda-ai.UUCP> merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes: > After reading Steve's original posting (cited in the >references line), I thought it would be obvious to most <people that the sort of language Steve objected to was a >gross violation of net.etiquette. Now that I've seen a few <days of the followups, I'm astonished that this doesn't seem >clear at all. I'm astonished that some people think a few four letter words are worth the fuss, or "indications of a borderline personality". > In my opinion, the net does not need or deserve the >sort of traffic that Steve was citing. Aside from the usual <stuff about making the sender (rathmann@brahms.berkeley.edu) >look like a jerk, it reflects poorly on all the users at <Berkeley. [What, they allow that kind of stuff out there??] >I won't talk to people who argue like that. Are there really people out there who are so dense that they imagine material sent from a place is reviewed and agreed upon by all people at that place, so one individual's posting has *anything* at all to do with what anyone else at that place thinks? I won't talk to people that argue like *that*! (Hence this posting in lieu of mail. :-)) > US Army Artificial Intelligence Center I *won't* say it. I'm so polite. :-) Jeff (disclaimers for the careless) Winslow
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (11/25/86)
In article <231@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > It's an odd state of affairs when people >can view themselves as the righteous defenders of free speech when they >they rush to the defence of someone's right to tell someone else she has >"shit-for-brains" while clamouring that someone else ought to be deprived >of his right to denounce it. Oh, come on. Think for a minute. They only "clamored" after *you* suggested depriving someone else of their right. One of the most effective ways of letting doctors know the foulness of a prescription is by making them take it themselves. There's nothing in the least odd about that. Jeff (disclaimers for the careless) Winslow
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
guy@enmasse.UUCP (The Computer Guy) (11/26/86)
In article <4041@utah-cs.UUCP> cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) writes:
->
->If you must post content-less articles, please (user@brahms and harnad) go
->back to posting them in talk.bizarre where they belong (and are then worth
->something.....)
->
No, please; talk.bizarre is a peaceful group. Flames aren't
sufficiently bizarre for talk.bizarre...
--
-- guy k hillyer
{alliant,panda,drilex}!enmasse!guy
"Billions of blue blistering barnacles in a thundering typhoon!"rathmann@brahms (the late Michael Ellis) (11/26/86)
>Edward J Cetron > Then Mr. Ellis posted again. That's impossible. I don't exist. >Big deal that ellis's >last posting was rot13 - so what if it offends no one for language - it is >STILL OFFENSIVE because it had several pages that had absolutely no content >at all I did not rot13 to hide offensive language, I rot13ed to make it easier for people to not bother with an article that they probably don't want to read in the first place. It was a warn- ing: all those expecting the meaning of usenet, please leave. >If you must post content-less articles, please (user@brahms and harnad) go >back to posting them in talk.bizarre where they belong (and are then worth >something.....) Bad boy me. I will retire to contemplating my non-existence in talk.philosophy.misc. But before I go, a small linguistic point needs clarification. >Mark Steven Jeghers >>Jordan Hayes >>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. I see you belong to the fecocerebral school of linguistic anal- ysis too, where words mean just what they say. Right. This completely misses the important question raised by Mr Hayes. ``You have shit for brains'' is a rude insult, whereas ``You don't have shit for brains'' is a rude insult. See the difference? I have a not-yet-published paper on this, entitled: "The Fecation of the English Tongue: Reflections on Current Trends in `Nonpolite' Usage." Limited preprints are available on request, but you have to supply the postage. As I said recently in a similar situation, utter crap. -michael A monk asked Ummon, "What is Buddha?" Ummon replied, "Kanshiketsu!" A shiketsu, or "shit-stick" (kan, dry; shi, shit; ketsu, stick), was used in old times instead of toilet paper. It is once both private and polluted. But in samadhi there is no private or public, no pure or polluted. He hurriedly took up shiketsu to support the Way. The decline of Buddhism was thus foreshadowed. Both minds are in unison; "kanshiketsu" corresponds to the Buddha as a lid fits the chest it was made for. Heart meets heart in warmth and intimacy. o Kanshiketsu! He is entirely innocent. He adheres to nothing. He is supremely free. o He hurriedly took up shiketsu. Unflustered, as quick as lightning, Ummon answered. o The decline of Buddhism. Mumon is always saying the opposite of what he means. -from Kasuki Sekida's translation of "Mumonkan, the Gateless Gate"
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!"barry@borealis.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (11/29/86)
I saved the following article for reply intending one kind of response, but, after catching up on everyone else's responses, I think my first reactions are redundant. I'll try for new thoughts, instead. >In article <378@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, weemba@brahms (Wimpy Math Grad Student) writes: >> his "shit-for-brains" seemed entirely >> uncalled for, but the rest of his comments seemed fairly routine fare... I found and read the original article - I agree with Matthew. From: harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad): >is the rude style also >to be a hallmark of the experienced net user, along with its apparent >sympathy for pathological abusiveness? I suspect that the glib >scatologs and scatologophiles are going to be more vocal in their >views on this, so the sample of responses will be a biased one. Nothing like a little insurance if the vox populi doesn't see it your way, eh? :-) I've been reading Michael Ellis's articles a long time. I want to echo what another poster (oops, forgot who) said, in spades. There is a conscious attempt at art in Ellis's style. The other poster actually doubted it was really conscious, though he saw the value in any case. I have no such doubt. Ellis is a highly non-categorical thinker, and makes no bones about using the widest variety of possible techniques to make his points. You may not always like the results - I certainly don't. But, as with that other nefarious net.criminal, John Williams (hi, John!), when it works you get value of a kind that drier discourse can't duplicate. I don't even need to cite modern classics to defend Ellis's approach. You want scatology? You want abusive personal attacks? Read your Aristophanes. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center *** NOTE NEW ADDRESS *** Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW ELECTRIC AVENUE: {hplabs,seismo,dual,ihnp4}!ames!borealis!barry
eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) (12/05/86)
In article <399@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> gsmith@brahms.berkeley.edu (Gene Ward Smith >I >don't like censors, self-appointed or otherwise; > . > . > I think you owe Michael Ellis an apology. But I won't try to kick you >off the net until you give him one; since I believe the net is big enough >even for the self-appointed censors. I hope I am right. Let me recount a few relevant facts, which may not be known to those who don't subscribe to talk.philosophy.misc. Mr. Ellis happens to be a frequent contributor to talk.philosophy.misc. Now, for the past 6 months, his many messages have all been completely devoted to making, over and over again, with varying degrees of rudeness, just one statement: that all Objectivists should be removed from the newsgroup. Mr. Smith is also a frequent contributor to talk.philosophy.misc (with a style even more offensive than that of Mr. Ellis). And, oddly enough, he hasn't said one word against Mr. Ellis; not an accusation of "self-appointed censorship"; not a demand that Mr. Ellis apologise to Objectivists; nothing. In fact, an insistent implication from Mr. Smith's own messages (though one that he never made explicit) is that he supports Mr. Ellis in this, too. So Mr. Smith's standards seem to be as follows: Mr. Ellis, who would censor people out of talk.philosophy.misc for the crime of agreeing with a philosophy he disapproves of, is OK; but Steven Harnad, who would like people on the net to follow some minimum standards of decency and civilised discussion, is a "self-appointed censor". Draw your own conclusions about Mr. Smith's sincerity. Whatever my disagreements with some of Steven Harnad's views, I've got to hand it to him; unlike many contributors to USENET, he is capable of holding a courteous, civilised discussion on an intellectual level. Messrs Ellis and Smith would be well advised to learn from him rather than attack him. Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal
desj@brahms (David desJardins) (12/06/86)
In article <8612040701.AA14267@jade.berkeley.edu> eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) writes: >Mr. Ellis happens to be a frequent contributor to talk.philosophy.misc. >Now, for the past 6 months, his many messages have all been completely >devoted to making, over and over again, with varying degrees of >rudeness, just one statement: that all Objectivists should be removed >from the newsgroup. While some may call this $truth, this is what is known in English as a *lie*. Michael Ellis has *never* advocated censorship, or the "removal" of any individual or posting from the newsgroup. He has indeed disagreed vehemently and perhaps offensively with certain postings. He may well have stated his opinion that you are a fool or that your opinions are worthless. But this is *far*, *far* different from censorship, from attempting to *prevent* another from expressing his opinions, which is what Mr. Harnad apparently would like to do and what those of us who appreciate freedom of speech find so odious. Can you not appreciate the distinction between censorship and disagree- ment? I would very much like to see a *single* quote supporting your statement that Mr. Ellis has proposed that Objectivists should "be removed from the newsgroup." Frankly, he is about the least likely person I know to make such a statement; those whose freedom of speech has been jeopardized generally have the greatest appreciation of the dangers of censorship. Unless and until you can produce at least *one* quote supporting your statements, it seems you should confine your complaints to those you can support with *evidence* rather than innuendo. -- David desJardins
gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) (12/06/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <8612040701.AA14267@jade.berkeley.edu> eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) writes: >In article <399@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> gsmith@brahms.berkeley.edu (Gene Ward Smith >>I don't like censors, self-appointed or otherwise ... [Gene Smith] >Let me recount a few relevant facts, which may not be known to those >who don't subscribe to talk.philosophy.misc. Let me recount a few not necessarily relevant facts for those of you who don't subscribe to talk.philosophy.misc. Let's look at some things which Mr. Mozes thinks are facts. Mr. Mozes thinks that Ayn Rand's ethical philosophy is a science. Mr. Mozes thinks that set theory and mathematical logic are not areas of mathematics. These are not facts, nor are they things on which informed and reasonable people disagree. These are false- hoods. Mr. Mozes does not like me because I rap his knuckles as he deserves for his activities as the Ted Holden of talk.philosophy.misc; but rather than try to refute me he prefers to publish from time to time articles such as this. I hope Mr. Mozes and Mr. Harnad become net good buddies, because they deserve each other. >Mr. Ellis happens to be a frequent contributor to talk.philosophy.misc. >Now, for the past 6 months, his many messages have all been completely >devoted to making, over and over again, with varying degrees of >rudeness, just one statement: that all Objectivists should be removed >from the newsgroup. This is false, so I suppose it is no surprise that Mr. Mozes calls it a "fact". ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "There are no differences but differences of degree between degrees of difference and no difference"
donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (12/06/86)
Eyal Mozes complains that the Berkeley Mafia wants to censor the Objectivists in talk.philosophy.misc, and this makes them hypocrites when they themselves complain of censorship in other groups. I gave up reading net.philosophy/talk.philosophy.misc years ago, mainly because it seemed rather like Vacation Bible School for Objectivists. I went over to look at the group just now to see if it has changed, and it has -- it's become more interesting, and mainly because of the Berkeley Mafia's postings. As I read Ellis's objections to Objectivism in the philosophy group, he is merely claiming that many of the Objectivist postings belong in talk.religion.objectivism. Of course the way Ellis phrases his objections is not very polite; but as he says, the people who write these articles, like street-corner evangelists or door-to-door missionaries, don't seem to respond unless one's objections are crude and pointed. At the time I stopped reading the philosophy group, the Objectivists had succeeded in eliminating all opposition through sheer force of bone-headedness. I suppose all that missionary zeal is good for the souls of those who write these articles, but it's dreadfully boring to read, and all the interesting people left the group. It seems to be getting more interesting now -- perhaps I'll resubscribe. I note that Ellis has publicly welcomed discussion in the philosophy group from Objectivists who could concede that other systems of thought were worthy of interest. I doubt he'll find any takers. At least Scientology had the decency to call itself a church, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (12/06/86)
I would like to point out, to those who are genuinely concerned about
it, that freedom of speech is not at issue in the current discussion
about ad hominem abuse on the Net. The issue is much simpler. It
concerns the difference between saying (1) "You're a liar" (which is
ritually intoned frequently by certain posters) and "I believe you are
mistaken," and that between "that's a pile of [suitably abusive
epithet]" and "I'm afraid I disagree" or "I believe there is evidence
that that is incorrect." The issue is whether the tail ends of the
gaussian are to be allowed to turn the Net into a Global graffiti
board, or whether the Net's extraordinary intellectual communicative
potential will be better realized with some humane, commonsense
constraints. The same judgments would have had to be made in
Guttenberg's time, mutatis mutandis.
All this righteous indignation on behalf of the "freedom" to be
personally abusive!
--
Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) (12/07/86)
In article <408@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >I would like to point out, to those who are genuinely concerned about >it, that freedom of speech is not at issue in the current discussion >about ad hominem abuse on the Net. >The issue is whether the tail ends of the >gaussian are to be allowed to turn the Net into a Global graffiti >board... There is a contradiction inherent in saying both "freedom of speech is not an issue" and "are to be allowed". Not allowing something is by defin- ition coercive and by definition not freedom. Sometimes we want to limit freedom for reasons which may be good. But be honest and admit that too much freedom of speech is precisely what you wish to limit. Incidently, ad hominem arguments are arguments which attempt to show a position wrong by stating or implying that the one arguing for it is not to be trusted. This is often a fallacy; and a rather mild example of ad hominem is your implication that some of the persons arguing for free speech really do not care about it, and so (one might infer) their argu- ments should be discounted. An insult is not strictly speaking an ad hominem in the same sense; as a person with an interest in language you would do well to chose your own words more carefully. >The same judgments would have had to be made in Guttenberg's time, mutatis >mutandis. One of the first results of Gutenberg's invention was the proliferation of extremely rude printed abuse. >All this righteous indignation on behalf of the "freedom" to be >personally abusive! I was at a loss as to how to reply, but Matthew recalled an apposite comment of Sartre's concerning freedom and abuse: Now we can see the meaning of the sadist's demand: grace reveals freedom as a property of the Other-as-object and refers obscurely--just as do the contradictions in the sensible world in the case of Platonic recollections--to a transcendent Beyond of which we preserve only a confused memory and which we can reach only by a radical modification of our being; that is, by resolutely assuming our being-for-others. Jean-Paul Sartre: "Being and Nothingness" ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?"J.M. Barrie
eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) (12/08/86)
In article <485@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes: > I would very much like to see a *single* quote supporting your >statement that Mr. Ellis has proposed that Objectivists should "be removed >from the newsgroup." The following is takes from article <424@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, one of Mr. Ellis' recent postings to talk.philosophy.misc: > Personally, I don't "oppose" Randroidism any more than I oppose Christian > Science or Krishna Consciousness. I just don't think that net.philosophy > is the place for the dissemination of propaganda for cults or ideologies. > > Note how you guys insist on seeing philosophy in strictly "us-versus-them" > terms -- that's why you are unable to discuss philosophical issues > in a rational, objective way -- your minds are clouded by "volitional > commitment" that your puerile beliefs be true -- and that's why you > people do not belong here. > > Get your propaganda out of here and into talk.religion or talk.politics > where it belongs. Now, I have a question for Mr. desJardins: you could have just asked me for that quote; why did you also find it necessary, in the rest of your message, to attack me personally, accusing me of inability to tell the difference between censorship and disagreement, and calling me a liar? That's exactly the sort of thing that upset Mr. Harnad, and he certainly has my sympathy. In article <1864.utah-gr.UUCP> donn@utah-gr.UUCP <Donn Seeley> writes: >Eyal Mozes complains that the Berkeley Mafia Please note that I never used the phrase "the Berkeley Mafia"; that's not my style. >I note that Ellis has publicly welcomed discussion in the philosophy >group from Objectivists who could concede that other systems of thought >were worthy of interest. Could Mr. Seeley produce any quote supporting THAT? I don't recall Mr. Ellis ever making any such statement. Considering that no Objectivist ever said anything that can be even REMOTELY construed as implying that other systems of thought aren't worthy of interest, while Mr. Ellis did explicitly say it about Objectivism several times; and considering that the few people on talk.philosophy.misc who post serious arguments against Objectivism in a civilised manner are always answered; I don't quite see how Mr. Ellis could have made any such statement without looking even more foolish than he does already. Anyway, even if he did say it, my point about Mr. Smith's double standard is just as valid. Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal
donn@UTAH-CS.ARPA (Donn Seeley) (12/09/86)
I don't know why I bother (and my diodes hurt all up and down my left side, too). Michael Ellis: Get your [Objectivist] propaganda out of here and into talk.religion or talk.politics where it belongs. Ellis isn't saying that that Objectivists should not be permitted to post in the philosophy group, he's saying that Objectivists have not been posting articles appropriate to that group. Eyal Mozes: Please note that I never used the phrase "the Berkeley Mafia"; that's not my style. @i(I) used that phrase. I don't care whether you find it suitable. Perhaps I should have used the more official 'brahms gang' (tm) instead of inventing slang which you perhaps are too unimaginative to handle. Eyal Mozes: Could Mr. Seeley produce any quote supporting [Ellis's alleged lack of objections to $reasonable postings by Objectivists]? Sure. Michael Ellis (11/27, title 'Rand => talk.religion.misc'): That is really excellent, Jack. If only the Objectivists would spend more time trying to understand what others are saying and less time attacking what they perceive as "opposing philosophIES", there would be far less objection to their presence in this newsgroup. I would even welcome communication among nondogmatic Randroids and the rest of us, just as I welcome nondogmatic discussions from any religious viewpoint, but there don't seem to be such folk as "nondogmatic Randroids" -- they ALL rave on about THE CORRECT definitions and THE CORRECT philosophical principles as though Ayn Rand's words were The Final Word on such matters. And their ravings are as rabid as those of the worst fundamentalist. Lest there be any doubt, it was exchanges like the following which led me to believe that the Objectivist postings in talk.philosophy.misc were no different from the similar earlier postings in net.philosophy... Eyal Mozes (>>) vs. Michael Ellis (11/28, title 'Re: defining Mathematics'): >> Now, is this "formalist" approach to mathematics valid? I >> submit that it isn't. It is based on wrong philosophical >> principles - clearly on rationalism, the idea that >> meaningful knowledge can be gained without referring to >> reality, and also on logical atomism and the conventional >> view of logic. "Wrong philosophical principles" -- this is religion, and does not belong in this newsgroup unless you are prepared to support it without resorting to cultish doctrines and appeals to the authority of the Holy Texts of Rand. I agree completely with Ellis here. The Objectivists in the original 'net.philosophy' were my original exposure to a unique form of censorship which can be carried out in public forums. The strategy is simply to produce so much verbiage on so many trivial points that it is impossible for a normal human being to find the time to refute them and still get any other work done. Since no interesting problems are covered, the readers get bored too. Eventually all the opposition and most of the readers drop away, and the conquerors are left to masturbate in peace. Net.music was nearly killed this way back in the time of the Kate Bush debacle. Net.women has been under constant assault from men who post messages about toilet paper or door etiquette instead of women's issues. I'm afraid I can't scrounge up so much as one crocodile tear of sympathy for Objectivists who feel they are being censored in the philosophy group. Sorry, Donn ('are you happy now?') Seeley
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (12/09/86)
I'd appreciate it if Mr. Mozes, Mr. G. W. Smith, Mr. Harnad, and Mr. Ellis could conduct their pissing match by private correspondence or even in talk.philosophy.misc rather than this newsgroup. Thanks in advance. Michael C. Berch News/mail administrator, styx ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb
roger@celtics.UUCP (12/10/86)
In article <8612080908.AA08813@jade.berkeley.edu> eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) writes: >In article <485@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes: >> I would very much like to see a *single* quote supporting your >>statement that Mr. Ellis has proposed that Objectivists should "be removed >>from the newsgroup." > >The following is takes from article <424@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, one of >Mr. Ellis' recent postings to talk.philosophy.misc: > >> Personally, I don't "oppose" Randroidism any more than I oppose Christian >> Science or Krishna Consciousness. I just don't think that net.philosophy >> is the place for the dissemination of propaganda for cults or ideologies. >> >> Note how you guys insist on seeing philosophy in strictly "us-versus-them" >> terms -- that's why you are unable to discuss philosophical issues >> in a rational, objective way -- your minds are clouded by "volitional >> commitment" that your puerile beliefs be true -- and that's why you >> people do not belong here. >> >> Get your propaganda out of here and into talk.religion or talk.politics >> where it belongs. > I can fiercely believe that "x" does not belong here, ask "x" to leave... in fact, demand that "x" leave... and that is not the same as demanding that "x" be removed. You and your fellow True Believers can act on that request, or not... no matter how often it is repeated, and by how many, in in what language. But you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language if you think the quote you offered supports your attack on Mr. Ellis. -- =================================== "Speak for the company?! Gee, I have a hard enough time speaking for myself!" ==================== Roger B.A. Klorese | ///==\\ | Celerity Computing (Eastern Region) | /// | 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552 | \\\ | | \\\==// | celerity!rklorese@sdcsvax.ARPA (sdcsvax!celerity!rklorese) ==================== celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV (seismo!celtics!roger)
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/14/86)
People need to keep in mind that freedom that cannot be abused is not
freedom at all. As has been remarked in the Supreme Court, decisions
preserving fundamental rights are often the result of the insistence of
obnoxious people that they have the right to be obnoxious - which, in fact,
they do.
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) (12/15/86)
Enough already! If the lot of you wanted the attention of system administrators network wide, you've got it. Now that you have it, what do you want us to do? I've been watching this debate since Mr. Harnad started it, and I fail to see why it continues in this forum for any other reason than inertia. I have seen no call to remove the "brahms gang" from the network, and even if there had been such a request presented here, I have seen no evidence supporting such an action on my part. All I see is some mild name calling and finger pointing. For those of you who have been insulted in one way or another, I'm sorry, but that's not cause for positive action on the part of the network admins. Neither is the use of scatalogical words and phrases. As I recently noted elsewhere, the USENET may be viewed as a highway system, and you all have mistaken the admins for the highway patrol. Wrong. We're the highway construction crew. There is *no* highway patrol. We only act when damage to the highway would result from our inaction (and even then, getting concerted action means convincing the entire crew that it would be a good thing to do!). So, if there are specific requests for network adminstrative action, please present them. If all you want to do is debate who said what to whom and why, then please take it back to talk.philosophy.misc or talk.religion or whatever /dev/null is called today... keeper of the network news on ucbvax, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu
cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) (12/16/86)
In article <16637@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: >As I recently noted elsewhere, the USENET may be viewed as a highway >system, and you all have mistaken the admins for the highway patrol. >Wrong. We're the highway construction crew. There is *no* highway >patrol. We only act when damage to the highway would result from our >inaction (and even then, getting concerted action means convincing the >entire crew that it would be a good thing to do!). hmm,,,,, highway construction crew.... no lets see, The Reagan administration has threatened the denial of highway funds and or mandatory seat belt restrictions for states with excessive speeding and/or drinking ages which are "too" low... hmmmmm, does the analogy convert???? Does this mean we must all type or post a little slower???? or maybe we need to raise the posting age (say none of those undergrad types)..... or maybe we should.......... -ed cetron (with tongue in cheek re: the net, not so happy with the real reagan plan(s) )
tgt@cbosgd.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson) (12/16/86)
In article <16637@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes:
# Enough already! If the lot of you wanted the attention of system
# administrators network wide, you've got it. Now that you have it, what
# do you want us to do?
#
# So, if there are specific requests for network adminstrative action,
# please present them. If all you want to do is debate who said what to
# whom and why, then please take it back to talk.philosophy.misc or
# talk.religion or whatever /dev/null is called today...
#
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As the sys admin for news on OHIOU.EDU (unofficially), I can say that this
entire discussion has gotten out of hand, and quite frankly, has gotten
REAL BORING!!
Erik has made an excellent point: Either tell the net what you want done
about the situation (in a none flammatory manner), or take your discussion
to a different place.
Tim Thompson
cbosgd!tgt
--
Timothy G. Thompson AT&T Network Systems Columbus, Ohio
cbosgd!tgt
DISCLAIMER: These ramblings are my own. However, a thousand monkeys pounding
on a thousand typewriters would eventually produce the exact same thing!!tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (12/16/86)
Barvo, Erik! I'd like to add that I have a hard time believing that
anyone's behavior could ever get to the point where either of the following
actions is justifiable:
(1) Recommending that someone's net privileges be taken away.
(2) Writing to the local system adminsitrator to complain about someone
(which amounts to exactly the same thing as #1, and in my experience has
been known to lead to it.)
The only grounds I could see for either action would be libel.
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (12/17/86)
In article <1489@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > I have a hard time believing that anyone's behavior could ever get to > the point where either of the following actions is justifiable: [...] > (2) Writing to the local system adminsitrator to complain about someone I disagree. As the SA for phri, I am responsible for things running smoothly; that includes seeing that people don't make public fools of themselves. This is a public invitation to anyone on the net to write to me if you think somebody here is acting in a grossly anti-social manner, and the direct approach has proven fruitless. We have a pretty professional group here, so I don't ever expect to get one of those letters, but if you feel the need to complain, I'm willing to listen. I won't promise I'll do anything specific about it, but I will look into the matter. It is unreasonable to expect any more or less of an SA (this is, however, my personal opinion). I have on rare occasions (I think twice in 3 years), taken it upon myself to write to another SA complaining about somebody. In one case, I got back an obnoxious letter from the person I was complaining about; I think it was somebody's single-user system. In the other case, the SA told me that the account from which the problem postings were eminating belonged to somebody who was no longer there, and aparantly the account was being used by somebody else and would be closed. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 "you can't spell deoxyribonucleic without unix!"