Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Steve Dyer's suggestion re: appalling flames Message-ID: <882@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Wed, 1-Aug-84 13:29:03 EDT Article-I.D.: bbncca.882 Posted: Wed Aug 1 13:29:03 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Aug-84 00:09:17 EDT References: <2732@decwrl.UUCP> <2@clkvax.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 68 Gregory, > All I can figure is that you must not read net.abortion or net.music or > net.religion (and n.r.jewish) very much. I read these other newsgroups. While bad taste and low standards of argu- ment are widespread on the net, the volume, stupidity, & offensiveness of bigoted mail is currently greater on net.motss, whether the messages are uncouth (arndtographic) or genteel (asking questions, ignoring answers). > You wanna keep it private.... Wha?? The issue is (ahem!) "netiquette", honored always in the breach, it seems. Usenet exists at the sufferance & through the cooperation of its subscribers. Although no gov't agency or other "authority" polices it or restricts what can be said, standards of appropriate behavior apply. I once favored an uncensored net; but not after the dreck of the last few months. I think people should CENSOR THEMSELVES and not bestow their grosser thoughts or impulses on the rest of us. > ...start your own mailing list. We did. And the "charter", or original statement of goals for the list specified it wasn't meant to be a dumping ground for "justification of homosexuality" arguments, etc. > There's about as much baiting here as there is in any other newsgroup > where personal choice is a central concern. "Personal choice" ?? I'm not sure what this phrase refers to; I'll take a guess: it means "homosexuality is voluntary" ? Now we're being defined (& on that basis criticized as a newsgroup) by one of the most tedious & empty of cherished beliefs of many homophobes. Don't you think that's a bit twisted, Gregory? > You might also want to ask yourself at some time in the future > whether or not as the newsgroup continues you'll find yourself giving > either the same old replies or the same old flames, or continuing to > answer stuff honestly. > Besides there's an interesting thing that happens when people swap > flames. Once in a while the smoke parts and you get to see a slightly > more complex sub-dialog going on underneath the sound and the fury... I dread to think how Gregory Taylor defines "honesty", if he can find cogency in, eg., Ardnt's sludge. I personally am not thrilled by a view that believes "truth" can only be uncovered in the muck of per- sonal fuckup, when, encased in filth, hoarse with howling, & exhausted by our mutual mauling of each other, we gaze ecstatically at the miserable little wisp of swamp gas that rises over us. (It's also easy to hold and promote this view when you don't belong to the group being reviled.) The "same old replies or the same old flames" of this newsgroup have for the most part been substantive & civil replies to critics who rarely offer the same in return. It makes me wonder whether you actually read net.motss (by the way, did you ever finish Boswell?). I've sent & received flames myself. They never add anything to the argu- ment at hand, certainly not "complexity". At best, they sanction offen- ders for grossness above-&-beyond-the-call-of-duty. Bigotry is simply malice; it's sterile, uncreative. "Don't mud-wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig loves it." Cheers, Ron Rizzo