Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!decwrl!shelby!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news From: prabhu@nas.nasa.gov Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Censorship and soc.religion.eastern - Opinions(6) Message-ID: <1990Nov10.095718.6184@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 10 Nov 90 09:57:18 GMT References: <1990Oct24.074140.20304@nas.nasa.gov> Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Lines: 62 Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov 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 (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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------