Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad From: harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: Abuses of the net Message-ID: <226@mind.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Nov-86 11:57:20 EST Article-I.D.: mind.226 Posted: Thu Nov 20 11:57:20 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Nov-86 22:55:38 EST References: <225@mind.UUCP> <378@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Organization: Cognitive Science, Princeton University Lines: 64 Summary: What are the real abuses of the net? In article <378@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) writes: > I have absolutely no idea what was going through > Michael's mind at the time, and his "shit-for-brains" seemed entirely > uncalled for, but the rest of his comments seemed fairly routine fare... > ...Read a little more carefully before calling someone "obviously disturbed." > At least if you plan to have your complaint considered seriously. The rest of the fairly routine fare, for those who don't recall it, was this (I regret that it got more care than it deserved): >> you have shit-for-brains... This is all horse manure... >> you are blowing your hot air out the wrong orifice... >> Paperboy wanted to handle Fecal Heights and surrounding vicinity... >> get her ass up here... don't waste your foul breath telling me... >> male chauvinist pricks... but THEY sure as hell left THEIR crap all >> over the place... go shove where the sun doesn't shine... Utter crap. > Considering that Michael made reference to net.debate from THREE YEARS > back, it's clear that something is going on that you don't know about. > For all you know the person involved called Michael incredibly rude > things back then, and he's just returning the favor. I wouldn't know. Whatever is going on, I don't want to know. And abusive rounds of "returning the favor" like this are just what I think some collective constraints should be used to stop, for the sake of the archival value and social responsibility of the net. > Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd ban people like you for crossposting > to 10 groups without putting in a followup. Instead I sent you e-mail > asking you not to do so. I never got a response, but then I've never > seen you do it again. Posting to inappropriate groups in the first > place, like news.admin, isn't too net.friendly an idea either. There is evidently a difference of opinion about what constitutes an abuse of the net. (I was, by the way, indeed a net-neophyte in my first posting, and, as you note, I did act on your message from then on, although I did not reply to it, because it was rude. I imagine that redundant posting by neophytes is a predictable initial error [perhaps some software similar to the software that blocks excessive requoting in a reply could be used to constrain new users' naive zeal], but is the rude style also to be a hallmark of the experienced net user, along with its apparent sympathy for pathological abusiveness? I suspect that the glib scatologs and scatologophiles are going to be more vocal in their views on this, so the sample of responses will be a biased one. I hold no brief for the "moral majority" -- with which these objections will no doubt be equated by the irate scatologophiles -- but might I encourage those who simply value the language and prefer politeness to make their voices heard too?) > >If the net is to evolve into the respectable forum many of us hope it > >will become, > > Hahahaha. This isn't talk.bizarre. No comment. -- Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771 {allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad harnad%mind@princeton.csnet