General Discussions about LUGNET : 675


Administrative / General / 675	674 \| 676

Subject:	Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.admin.general
Date:	Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06:30:09 GMT
Reply-To:	BEAKER@POBOX.COMspamless
Viewed:	698 times

Also sprach Todd Lehman: : The difficult thing is that it's not really possible to define profanity in : any way that people can agree on, especially in purely illustrative contexts : such as Jim Baker's (a.k.a. "Beaker") delicate use of the F-word earlier : this morning. I'm really not trying to be a pain in the as, er neck about this:) To me the issue is about whether you pander to the lowest common denominator or not. As I see it, too much of popualr culture is held hostage to the expectations of the most conservative members. The internet itself is a good exmple: this wonderful forum for communication is repeatedly threatened by clueless legislators who think that everything online should be reduced to the level of 'Goodnight Moon' ... If it were up to me, I would have no problem with a general feeling that such language is to be used sparingly if at all, and that a disticntion be drawn between casual use and abusive behavior. But I would be strongly opposed to unilateral ban on such language, or sanctions against it. The issue is in too much dispute for my libertarian philosophy to accept an absolute ban. However, it's not up to me, it's up to you, Todd. I do think the issue is in need of clarification. Personally, I will honor whatever decision you make, but I can't guarantee that I will continue to post here if legal and widely acceptable speech is banned. It's a personal quirk, and not meant to challenge you. I hope you understand. / _ _ / _ _ Only 311 New Yorkers are bitten by rats in an average ()(-(//((-/ year. 1,519 New Yorkers are bitten in the same period by *other New Yorkers* ============= Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ==============

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
Beaker wrote in message ... (...) While I agree with you, I think you're misapplying the principle. We should discourage the LCD approach, but with the intention of raising the standard not lowering it. Too much of the internet is already devoted (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)

		Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
(...) Sorry to accuse you of waving that libertarian flag a little too strongly, but if you look at it from a true libertarian perspective wouldn't you respect a unilateral ban HERE, on Lugnet, since this IS a private system owned by two private (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:

		Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
(...) Depending on how you interpet the Terms of Use, there already is a ban on profanity here. (That's how I interpret it.) The difficult thing is that it's not really possible to define profanity in any way that people can agree on, especially in (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

16 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search