Subject:
|
Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jan 1999 21:18:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
989 times
|
| |
|
|
Beaker wrote in message ...
> Also sprach Moz (Chris Moseley):
> A ban is almost always a poor alternative to a sensible and intelligent
> policy. Bans are intellectually limiting and generally unworkable in
> practice
How so? Even I could write a simple filter script to detect and reject
a list of banned words for the news environments I've seen. And I
don't see how having such a list is "intellectually limiting" - if
anything surely it's the opposite, as people strive to discover
alternative methods to express themselves?
> Bans assume the worst in people, whereas good policy does not.
This I disagree with. A ban with wide support will not impinge
on most people at all, as they will never be affected by it. One
that is put in place specifically to exclude some group will, if
implemented correctly, affect only that group. In this case my
impression is that most people here (including you) would
rarely if ever be affected by the ban under discussion.
So in that sense a ban assumes nothing about people, and in fact
only in the sense that it introduces a censorship step to what is
already a store-and-conditionally-forward process can it be
said to assume anything. In practice it is IMO more reasonable
to install a filter than to expect Todd or his minions to
read every post an remove objectionable ones. This is what has
already been done with respect to binary posts and posts from
unidentified sources.
Are your objections philisophical or practical? So far I've
assumed the latter since the former seems nonsensical to me.
If philisophical, I wondher why you have not protested the
existing filters on non-ascii and psuedonymous posts?
> As a fine example of my point, I give you current U.S. drug
> policy.
I'm afraid I have no idea what that policy is. I realise that the
USA still has prohibitionist tendencies as a hangover from your
puritan roots, is that what you mean?
> : The more you
> : protest the more I discount what I've seen of your postings in favour
> : of a picture of you as someone who occasionally breaks down into a
> : mess of incoherent swearing, and feels that that is a good thing.
> Chris, I challenge you to show me one instance of 'incoherent swearing'
> in my entire history of posting on RTL and lugnet.
As I said, "The more you protest the more I discount what I've seen of
your postings ". Is this ambiguous in some way that I've missed? Let
me rephrase it somewhat. "At this point I am unaware of any posts
of yours which would be affected by the ban we are discussing. I do
not recall having read any profanity or expletives in your postings
to date. However, your continued insistence on maintaining the
ability to use them makes me doubt your intention not to do so".
HTH
Moz
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
