prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) (11/10/90)
From: williamt%athena@Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow)
Personally I have no problem with it used in the context that it
was used. A moderator's job, IMO, should be to filter out *flames*,
and off topic material -- not to censor or change _how_ things
are said.
Admittedly, I don't have a preference for those words, but that
should be the choice of the poster -- not the moderator. Editting a
message changes the character of the poster's message. To reject it is
rejecting something that could be of useful content to some or many.
Besides, the language in which a person expresses his thoughts is often
indicative of the person. If someone uses swear words too much, or
gratuitously, that also reflects on that person.
-wat-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SECBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jack Carroll)
Thank you for consulting the group.
I regularly read a few other moderated groups and "censorship" - for
me hasn't been an issue - except in soc.religion.christian. In
that particular group the moderator has taken it upon himself
to create rules without consulting the readership, he limits the
number of postings on a given topic and he regularly appends his
own comments to the articles submitted. In short, he runs the
group as a personal fiefdom.
Your example and your suggestion for handling the need for "censorship"
seems to me very acceptable. An opportunity for a poster to edit and
resubmit an article should ensure that no is kept off the net by
the personal whim or preferences of a moderator.
Thank you for bringing this to the group.
Jack Carroll
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lacey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Mark M. Lacey)
A word in itself is just a word. Although some might find it offensive,
others may see how it shows a point. When people overuse words that
many around them see as offensive, they are usually not taken very
seriously, and their opinions are simply disregarded. I think that if a
person feels that a certain word will help illustrate a point, they
should be allowed to use it to do so.
Mark M. Lacey (lacey@buster.cps.msu.edu)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) (11/10/90)
From: J Ramanathan <ramanath@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
A while back (possibly before you took over as moderator), I had sent via
e-mail a message to the previous moderator (for subsequent posting on s.r.e.)
in which I had suggested that s.r.e. be 'unmoderated' for a brief period, on
an experimental basis. The article never saw the light of the day. I didn't
even receive an e-mail reply.
Now that you've brought up the question on the net, I propose to you once
again to remove the moderated status of s.r.e. for, say, 2 weeks or so. I
firmly believe that a group devoted to discussions of eastern religions and
philosophies should be unmoderated - I hope the readers of this group are
less doctrinaire in their views than those of some of the other religion
groups on the net.
Please think over my suggestion and if you feel it's reasonable (and can be
implemented), please have this trial 'unmoderation' go into effect.
Thank you.
-jayaram
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug Auerbach <csc051@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Dinesh,
I think that there is no need to censor offensive words from
this newsgroup. Language allows for many ways of personal expression,
and "the s-word" has usefulness as does any other word.
Considering the newsgroup is moderated, I don't think there will
be a problem with someone posting messages full of swearing, as happened
recently on alt.conspiracy, alt.drugs, and rec.music.gdead.
Besides, with the coming of NREN (if you haven't heard, it will
be the Internet/Usenet under the control of a joint venture between
management groups at IBM and MCI) in the near future, censorship might
become the norm all too soon. Why rush it?
Thanks,
Doug Auerbach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pgd@bbt.se (P. Das)
I think it is good that the texts are censored a little bit. Just look
at "talk.religion.misc", if you want to see a horror example.
This particular case maybe is special. But I think that the word were
not so well chosen. For example, he could have used the word "stool",
which means a similar thing, but appears more cultivated. (English is
not my native language, so I might be wrong on that point).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu) (11/10/90)
From: Ken_Blackman.INTEGRATION@gateway.qm.apple.com (Ken Blackman) As you probably know, censorship has been a topic of much discussion in the entertainment world recently, and one to which I have devoted a great deal of thought. I do have opinions about it in that context, but I view this medium in such a different light that I feel I must completely reconsider the question before answering, rather than simply applying to it any previously arrived at conclusions regarding records and movies and the like. I am prompted to ask, Why are you censoring at all? Let me add immediately that I don't mean to imply that I think you shouldn't, or that censorship is wrong, etc. I just think it's important to find out what YOUR reasons for censoring the posts to this group are, rather than assuming I already know what they are. I think the motivations of the individual actually charged with the task must have some bearing on WHAT ultimately gets censored. I'm also interested in how that task fits into the scope of the net as a whole: what is our usual policy? To what degree, and under what conditions, is censorship customary? Or required? Or prohibited? I would like to make one comment about the statement of yours which I quoted above. It seems to me that whether you alter an article or reject it, in either case this is still censorship. Again, I'm not saying that this is bad or unwarrented, etc. (You know, the word censorship has such negative connotations, I feel I must appologize each time I use it. :-) This for me is part of the dilemma.) I mention all of this because I believe that in order to discuss this controversy in any real depth, we need to be real about what we're talking about, what our actions are and what we hope to accomplish thereby. In other words, lets get things straight here: this IS censorship, whatever method we choose, so if we agree on that, and we decide to do it, then lets choose a policy that is in line with our reasons for doing it. That said, let me voice some of my own feelings on this subject. My reasons for supporting the moderator in exercising his/her authority in this area are as follows: 1) I personally wish not to offend anyone. 2) It is my understanding that some sites will not carry a group that contains obscenities. 3) I have seen irresponsible posts in other groups which I personally felt added little or nothing, and heightened tensions for many posts thereafter. Note that there are other possible reasons, for example, someone may feel that the topics discussed in this group make the presence of obscenities particularly inappropriate, or there may simply exist some policy requiring that the contents of this group be clean. My reasons for objecting to this type of moderation are as follows: 1) I personally wish not to offend anyone. 2) I have found that language conveys tremendous amounts of information beyond the obvious meanings of the individual words. 3) I feel the net's purpose is best served when moderators' presence is, in general, felt as little as possible. Again, there may be other reasons, such as a strong belief in the concept of freedom of speech, or perhaps a policy prohibiting censorship. Hey, what do I know? Thus, with the understanding that I have critical questions as yet unanswered, let me offer this suggestion. In general, obscenities will occur infrequently, right? When an article arrives which contains material with which you, as moderator, feel uncomfortable: 1) tell the poster this, 2) tell them why, 3) ask if they feel the material carries a meaning that's crucial to the essense of their post, and 4) ask if they can re-write it to be less potentially offensive. If they answer that the article cannot be rewritten without loosing the substance of what they wished to convey, and I don't think this will happen very often in this group but when it does, then I submit to you that you have a duty to allow it to be posted as is. The poster has been notified of the way their article may be interpreted; they've demonstrated that they are aware of this, and that they nonetheless have something important which they're trying to convey to the other people on the net. Unless it is wildly off the subject, or absolutely X-rated (or NC-17 rated :-) ), I say let it go through. Let the readers react in whatever way they choose, rather than assuming you already know how they will react. We may surprise you! In any case, good wishes, and thank you for opening the topic for discussion. --KB -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (11/10/90)
From: jimt@yeats.intel.com
Well, after all . . . one of the patriarchs is remembered to have said,
"The Buddha is a shit stick."
Jim Travers
jimt@yeats.intel.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: moskowit@paul.rutgers.edu (Len Moskowitz)
I can't think of many words that would offend me. Let 'em through.
Len M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Schoonover <jamess@ttidcc.TTI.COM>
I personally feel no problem with "colorful" language in nearly
any context. However, if you would prefer to reject uses of such
language in cases where you can see no possible purpose that it
might serve, that would be fine with me as well. Though I do think
that "colorful" language is sometimes employed to good use by some
of the more modern spiritual masters and even the older and more
traditional spiritual literature may contain, at least, the occasional
"colorful" story. I'd sort of hate to see these things unconditionally
banned from the group.
-Jim Schoonover
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jbarber%pravda@gatech.edu (John R. Barber)
I agree with this solution. For it to work, however, there must be
generally published guidelines and consensus that the guidelines are
reasonable.
I do not feel that it is necessary to use crude language to communicate
effectively in this news group. Anything that can be stated in a crude
way can also be stated in a less offensive way that maintains proper
respect for oneself and for one's audience.
John R. Barber AI Group, College of Computing, Georgia Tech
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (11/10/90)
From: kraus@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM
Dear Mr. Prabhu,
I would like to submit the following thoughts to soc.religion.eastern on the
topic of "Body and Soul". Before I list the article, I'd like to make a
comment on your referendum about foul language.
It is my opinion that foul language could be permissable if it is not
used in an abusive,derisive tone. Analogies that are making a point through
the use of foul language should be ok. Other uses of foul language for
the purpose of commenting on another person's thoughts etc. should not
be permitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali)
Dinesh,
If the language used is ok in the context, I'd
say that it can be accepted. We all know what
the s-word is - so it does not help to say
"there was an s-word here & I replaced it". The
word comes to mind anyway. On the whole, I'd say that
gratuitous use of profanity is unwelcome.
Sridhar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ames!eos.arc.nasa.gov!ames!scubed!ncr-sd!ncrwic!ncrwat!images1.Waterloo.NCR.COM!reg
Hello;
It is my opinion that there should be no censoring of "bad" words for this
newsgroup. There are no s-words that could possibly offend me, only disgusting
ideas, and I'll censor those myself with my n-key and k-key.
Thank you. --Reg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hugh Garsden <hugh@cs.adelaide.edu.au>
Personally, I'm not too bothered by swearing, but I have difficulty
in working out how it can be a "spiritual analogy".
Maybe you could do this - if anyone can come up with examples
of swear words in texts discussing eastern religions,
then that could be considered a precedent, and we should allow them.
Otherwise, we don't.
Reading the above, I guess it's a bit vague. So my vote is "No",
on the grounds that I don't believe there are any precedents.
If the group was rec.humor, then it would be a different matter.
Hugh Garsden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (11/10/90)
From: kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) The point of the matter is the argument being made not the words of the matter. I mean,if the point of one's argument is valid, then no amount of "colorful" words can change it, so why use them? Its not just a matter of cleaning it up, but talking in a meaningful way. Using those words implies a very emotional state, and could be better presented with a calm mind. I agree with you. Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders) It is very difficult, given the broad mix of people who have at least some interest in serious subjects, to apply a single standard to all material submitted to a group such as this. I have not seen the article you refer to, but I can easily imagine a context in which a writer of integrity might wish to use strong language intentionally in order to make a certain point, or to create a certain emotional effect. I consider this use of language entirely (and even importantly) legitimate--even though such useage might offend some people. The same could be said of art in general: there is certainly great art which is not "beautiful" in the accepted sense. On the other hand, "flame" (or what might be called a "flame mentality") is not uncommon on the net. Many readers (and contributors) are young, some are easily aroused. I believe you have an obligation, as part of your duties as administrator of this newsgroup, to spare your readership the pointless experience of reading such "stuff". This of course puts the burden on you to tell the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. But I expect you wouldn't have taken on the task in the first place unless you were up to it. I would certainly return any unacceptable material to the author for revision. My two cents. Regards, Alan asanders@adobe.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Stinson <PSTINSON@GSB-LIRA.STANFORD.EDU> (1) Given the choice of (i) returning material with objectionable material and (ii) "publishing" material after editing out objectionable material, I vote for (i) returning material... (2) If possible, why not let authors indicate their preferences in the submitted material? (I realize this may impose time-costs on you which are too high; this is just a suggestion). (3) Thanks *very* much for giving us your time to monitor this newsgroup. We gain a lot from your efforts! Best wishes, Chris Stinson PSTINSON@WHAT.STANFORD.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------