Perhaps one of the more "fashionble" ways for governments to discourage participation in public inet newsgroups is to harass the readers thru foul language. Such activity, if successful, would well serve their interests. The highest probability of "negative" participation in _this_ newsgroup, at _all_ levels, would be from government, as they are the ultimate defendants.

If you accept this position, wouldn't this indicate that someone in a position of authority takes exception to our expressed concerns?

Of course, professional (paid) monitors will be anxious to refute this position.

-- A. Hambley (a.hambley@usa.net), May 04, 1999

Answers

It's hard to say, but paid flacks are quite capable of impersonating trolls, teen-agers or just about anyone they want. Clumsily (a lot of them are Clouseau types) but with some effect. OTOH, we can't know for sure if it's happening and it's probably a waste of time to worry about it.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 04, 1999.

Big Dog,

If this forum is being run off a $250,000 'puter at MIT ( correct me if I'm wrong ) Mr. Greenspun will have no trouble traceing the spammers back to their ISP. As the posts violate the use agreement with the server, the spammer will be cut off and their name/org known to Mr. Greenspun. We will probably never know.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 04, 1999.

I do not advocate censorship. However,this is a forum for a specific purpose and not a center for email S/M. I learn a lot even from the offtopic items but it seems that in the last two months the static has become unbearable. Most offensive is the foul language used by several of the posters (of BOTH persuasions). At least most of the trolls keep it clean. Lately they all seem to have deteriorated drastically in the quality and content of the posts.

Mr. Greenspun has both the right and the ability to exclude anyone he wishes from this forum. Question....who makes the decision?? Anyone excluded will immediately start screaming about First Amendment violations (even though its a private forum). I believe that if Ed or a subordinate could screen the posts and remove any that were severely off topic or off color and do it consistently, the posters would move to more accepting territory. This would really tick Maria and some of the others, probably injure INVAR fatally if he/she had to 'bite their tongue' and really alienate Andy.@ an numerous others.

I do not believe that the rampant right wing talk about consipiracies, black helicopters (although they do exist) and concentration camps have a place on this forum. There are other forums close by that welcome those types of posts. Neither do I think that the trolls should have it their way either. Stephen Poole is a troll but at least his posts are for the most part on topic and appropriate. However, the rather severe and vulgar attacks by some of the pollys (Maria, Chicken Little, Motha Natchu) go beyond the bounds of good taste and civilzed behaviour. Similar responses to the trolls by Andy and a couple others also violate good behavior.

Do I object to an occasional damn, etc. or the use of astericks. No I don't. I do object to violent and profane language used indiscriminately. I was taught that that was the sign of a shallow mind that was looking for filler material. Do I object to OT posts? No....but there were eleven posts this last three days that dealt with 'conspiracies' and gun control. Is it based in fact? Probably.....but it needs to go to another forum. Use and purpose of firearms as pertains to y2k is most appropriate and needs to be discussed here.

Ed, what's your feelings on this?

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), May 04, 1999.

I suspect you're about to get heavily flamed, Lobo, but if it's any consolation I agree with your sentiments. I hope others of "like mind" (to borrow a phrase) will also show their support.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

Oh Mighty Web Master,

Please don't make me control my own mouse and index finger.

Please read every word and save us from non-PC posts.

Please filter every word I read so I won't be offended.

Are you a Democrat?

Sorry,,don't take offence,,,nothing personal. I'd bet Mr. Yourdon and Mr. Greenspun have better things to do than baby-sit a bunch of supposed adults.,,, After all, it is a research site.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 05, 1999.

Government-sponsored foul language ... ay, yi, yi, yi, yi ...

- - -

A. Hambley,

>to discourage participation in public inet newsgroups is to harass the readers thru foul language.

But this doesn't drive off all or equally. So we have to consider when it is in a government's interest to drive off those who can be driven off that way, leaving those who can't. (Of course, here there are various types of "foul" language, discouraging various groups of readers.)

>The highest probability of "negative" participation in _this_ newsgroup, at _all_ levels, would be from government, as they are the ultimate defendants.

Not necessarily -- Some of us programmers wrote some of the non-Y2k-compliant code out there, though I expect that little of mine survives. (Really! It just wasn't the type that would. Honest! I didn't write all that much that was date-sensitive. Ya gotta believe me ... ya gotta ...)

But I would agree that government is the most popular target here.

- - -

Lobo,

Generally agree with you.

I think the type of censorship already employed in this forum is probably all we're going to see -- deletion of threads or postings in certain narrow categories like the ones incorporating photos of nude people or listing personal information that could be used to harrass individuals, and maybe something else. I certainly haven't seen deletion of any thread anyone else or I have complained about being off-topic, outside those narrow categories, (and note that I haven't called for their deletion, either -- I just want the posters to take them elsewhere).

>Most offensive is the foul language used by several of the posters

... and, as above, there will be differing opinions as to what is "foul".

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 05, 1999.

A Hambly, thank you for the post. Sounds like an interesting bit of research for someone of talent and time. I imagine there are a few here that would love a chance to do a little detective work on that theory.

Lobo, Count me in, too. And if Old Git is on your side, then it must be the right side!

Our language is frought with options, some more colorful than others. It would be 'refreshing' to see some new old ones used instead of the more common variety that we have been treated to. That is, if one feels that the message absolutley requires it. [Just think of the time you would save typing by not using them. :)]

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

Don't ou just love socialism? It is and always will be the downfall of every free thought.

If you don't own it, stop trying to manipulate it.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

However, the rather severe and vulgar attacks by some of the pollys (Maria, Chicken Little, Motha Natchu)"

please...if you're going to slam me, at least learn to spell!

And BTW, would you be so kind as to point me to my 'vulgar' posts? or others? One of the funniest phenom's in this looney bin is how moderates are accused of "causing people not to prepare" or "posting disinformation"... A HAH HAH ha hah ha! Trying to correct mis-information is more like it...

now it is "severe and vulgar" posts! YEAH, BABY!!!! Right on! (whata buncha boneheads!) You should read some of your 'buddies' like Invar, E coli, ray, a, A, Andy, Sysman...the list goes on and on and on....

They anti-government posts should be offensive to most Americans, the technically flawed posts should be properly scrutinized (but generally are not by "doomers") and the conspiracy posts (we'll call those the 'anti-intelligence' posts) should be laughed off the forum.

"Sometimes children need a firm hand when they are misbehaving"

BTW...cracking up over the 'paid moniter' crap! I think sombody(y2kpro?) posted "you people think you are worthy of federal attention?" LOL!

-- Mutha Nachu (---@coolmountainstreams.com), May 05, 1999.

Hambley "Thou whoreson little tidy Bartholomew boar-pig!" Lobo, "thou motley minded fool of the basest function;" Only Shakespeare can adequately express my opinion of your "dainty and such picking grievances," in that wormy little post.

As the neo Torquemada, or the old Starr, you could enforce the following: Trolls and polly and spies, oh my! This forum should be cleansed and purified at once! "Most offensive is the foul language" coming out of this chicken house by "posters (of BOTH persuasions.)" Off with their heads! The powers that be must hire a monitor; IMHO Linda Tripp would be perfect to "screen the posts."

First let's drive off "Maria and some of the others..." And we want to "injure INVAR fatally...and really alienate Andy.@ an numerous others" And no more Off Topic subjects, or rampant (much worse than rampart) right wing talk, or conspiracies, black helicopters (although they do exist) and concentrations camps.

AND, the rather severe, vulgar attacks by Maria, Chicken Little and Motha Natchue must stop. They "go beyond the bounds of good taste and civilized behaviour." Send in the Apache helicopters!!

But there is no objection "to an occasional damn, etc. or the use of astericks." But watch those "astericks," they are suspect!. Also, no guns, no sex, no booze, but mainly "violent and profane language used indiscriminately," must be eliminated. The procedure will proceed according to section #999, or is it #666 in the manual of Forbidden English: The Authoritative Guide to the Most Offensive Words in American English." After finding the word, or phrase in the manual, the offender will be given a warning. A second offense will require the wearing of a condom on the offender's tongue. A third offense will be a caning of twenty lashes and ejection from this forum.

Also, in the future, (except for Mr. Poole) pollys, trolls and suspects of BOTH persuasions, DGI's, government employees, religious fanatics, cross dressers, atheists, environmentalists, short men, tree huggers, tall women, animal lovers, DWGI's, nonChristians, gum chewers, bagpipers, cloggers, maltworms and Bill Clinton, will not be allowed on this forum.

Censorship must carry the day so that we of unlimited time, but limited intellect will not be offended. The depts of our shallow minds must not be corrupted by those who would call us "ragged Warts, pieces of valiant dust, prating mountebanks, whore mongers and puke-stockings"

-- gale (guide@earthling.net), May 06, 1999.