Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: HOW TO DEAL WITH A JERK
Message-ID: <7800475@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 23:27:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800475
Posted: Thu Sep 26 23:27:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 05:50:26 EDT
References: <372@wuphys.UUCP>
Lines: 49
Nf-ID: #R:wuphys:-37200:inmet:7800475:000:2425
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Sep 26 23:27:00 1985


[{ucbvax,decwrl}!sun!alan]
> He is posting in a civilized fashion to the appropriate forums.

If this were true, you would be right. But what is a  "civilized"
fashion  ?   The person you are speaking about does not use swear
words; he spells correctly, he even writes "ad nauseam" when almost
everyone misspells "ad nauseum". He  adopts  a  smooth tone.
Is this civilized ?

BUT he speaks, e.g., of 5.7 odd  million  "Americans"; the quotation
marks are his, and he means American Jews. Just think of this:
Gentiles are Americans, Jews are "Americans". Viciously insulting an
ethnic or religious group is *not* within the  norms  of  contemporary
American  civilization.  
 
 But  remember,  norms  change,   and  they  change  by  *usage*.
This  is  what makes such  language  dangerous: it creates a pre-
cedent.  The *substance* of what a person says is covered by  the
principle  of  free  speech; besides, in this case it is  beneath
contempt (even though Gary Samuelson managed to write an  article
about  it that is truly beautiful in its  calm  logic).  But  the
*form* can and should be regulated - I don't mean by law  but  by
everyone    being   conscious   of   the   offended   norm.    

 In Congress,  speech  is  free; yet  members  get  censured  for
unparliamentary accusations.
 In recent elections Jesse Jackson was censured severely for what
he  said  in  a  semi-private setting; something not one-tenth as
odious as the expression above.  And he *apologized*,  too.

 True, politics is one thing, free discussion on a net is  anoth-
er.  So,  we are freely discussing the definition of "civilized".
For better or  worse,  such  are  current  civilized  norms.  Are
you proposing to start changing them with this case ?

		Jan Wasilewsky

P. S. I am not in favor of the approach  recommended  by  Laurie.
Though  economic  boycott  is legitimate, it would tend to make a
martyr for a cause unworthy to have one.  A  phony  martyr,  too,
since  his  group  (whatever it is) would find him another source
of income. We are not dealing with  one  individual.  Think  of
these  alleged  JDL  bombings:  they  made publicity both for JDL
(which is bad, but they might relish it)  *and*  for  the  bombed
Nazi  outfit - which is worse, and they should have known better.
Fringe groups thrive on  notoriety;  their  main  problem  is  to
achieve  *name  recognition*. So, don't help them unless you want
to. 


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com