Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!pk2
From: pk2@ukc.ac.uk (P.Kathuria)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: What constitutes abuse ...
Message-ID: <3507@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Dec 89 21:05:05 GMT
References: <7312@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: paola@zen.co.uk
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 31

In article <7312@ficc.uu.net> gardosik@ficc.uu.net (tom gardosik) writes a 
lot of sense.  

I was suprised to see Bill Wells say: 
> Let's be real. Those were jokes. J-O-K-E-S. Words in a computer.
> Nothing more. To confuse words with their denoted actions is a
> sign of a serious psychological problem. You should see someone
> about that.

I have flamed Mike Tierney on this issue (poster of Compendium of Sorority 
Girl Jokes, Why Cucumbers are Better Than Men Jokes etc etc) because I 
cannot see the humour in insults disguised as jokes.  Making something into 
a `joke' is not okay, just bloody naive.

I think hettinger@krypton did right, even to mailing the administrator.
I don't know why everyone has thrown their hands up in horror saying
"He's going to lose his job now" since all that has been done is to
provide the administrator with information and it's up to her/him to
follow it up.  A reasonable course of action would to be take the Offensive
Poster aside and say "hey, you're pissing people off, watch it".

Freedom of speech, eh?  What the frog is rec.humor.funny if not
censorship?

>> You were wrong.
>
>I disagree. He was right.

Indeed

Paola