Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:37:55 -0800
Reply-To: Jeffrey Schwaia <jeff@VANAGONPARTS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jeffrey Schwaia <jeff@VANAGONPARTS.COM>
Subject: Re: oh (deleted), here we go again
In-Reply-To: <41A3B333.4090506@charter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I agree. Additionally, if you have a problem with the way TomC runs the
list, it is only polite to p-mail him with your concerns.
Peace,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]On Behalf
Of John Rodgers
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:01 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: oh (deleted), here we go again
Tim. I'm not the moderator, don't want to be, but if the thread
continues with the language, there are going to be some people no longer
on the List. Tom C. has the authority by way of being our VOLUNTEER
moderator, and he has done an excellent job. H As such, he has the right
to be jury, judge, and executioner. I have seen it happen before.
Experience is the best guide. If you don't beleive me, just keep it up.
I'm not trying to be a buttinsky here, it's just I have been around here
a long time and know the drill. There are no "Rights" involved here,
only "Priveleges". and I defend the arrangement. Helps keep things on
track.
I repeat the suggestion I made to Joy, and now to you, Tim.
The problem here is that this is not an entirely adult forum. There are
kids that get on and read Mom's or
Dad's Vanagon List mail. That casts the language issue in an entirely
different light.
How do I know this? I've now been on this list a fairly long time - a
few years - and I have seen this debate before. And always the kids are
involved. This is not a good venue for "Adult Language" content. I'm an
"Old Salt" myself - US. Navy - and my language can be quite salty when I
want it to be. But I am keen as to when to use it and when not to. So,
from my perspective it would eliminate the controversy, as well as
reduce NVC use of bandwidth if we all cooled it a bit on the language
thing.
Best Regards,
John Rodgers
88 GL Driver
Tim in Seattle wrote:
>You've got to be kidding. "Shit" is a word that causes censorship? I
>see 604 instances of shit in the archives (63 instances of shit in the
>subject line) and don't recall any prior restraint such as this. What
>brought this on, Tom? I'd really like to know.
>
>With all the shit in the archives, I gotta ask, is shit ever allowed?
>Will someone be cleaning those dirty archives? Or will shit come in
>and out of favor based on Tom's moods amount of time to wade through
>all the shit.
>
>Where does the word ban stop? What if I'm talking about "How to Shit
>in the Woods, an Environmentally Sound Approach to a Lost Art." (by
>Kathleen Meyer, Ten Speed Press, ISBN: 0898156270)? It's a great book
>on the proper way to, well, shit, in the woods when you are dry
>camping in with your westy (required vanagon content). How about
>slight variants on shit? Like Merde? Or what if I say Shite? Crap?
>Poop?
>
>What about non-defecation related words? Bitch? It's allowed on
>primetime TV. Damn? Asshole? Bastard? I just don't get this. These
>are words that reflect the language of everyday life.
>
>I think the issue of "kids" is a red herring. Kids on the internet are
>going to see a LOT worse things than the occasional shit word.
>
>What kind of tightass (can I say ass?) country have we become? Janet
>Jackson's Superbowl nipple (can I say nipple?) caused a huge uproar.
>Now this issue of the commercial showing an "Angry Housewives" TV show
>star in a towel in locker room with an NFL player is getting
>everyone's panties (can I say panty?) in a wad (can I say wad?). Mr.
>and Mrs America are sitting around with their kids watching a sport
>that glorifies violence (I've played football, I KNOW, the intent is
>to hurt the other players), and they have the audacity to complain
>about a nipple or a towel? Pleeeease!
>
>I'm willing to admit there are some inappropriate words for the list
>-- a certain four letter word starting with "f" and ending with "uck,"
>is an obvious choice (or non-choice) of words not to use. But, shit?
>Come on, that's going a bit too far.
>
>Frankly, I think the list can do a pretty good job of policing itself
>on issues like this. If the community standard is to be a shitless
>list (not to be confused with shit list, something no one wants to be
>on), then the archives will reinforce that, and when the occasion
>misstep occurs, the list community will let the errant poster know
>what is and isn't allowed.
>
>In this case, it seems like the list has spoken and the archives seem
>to back me up. I guess you could say, when it comes to vanagons,
>people tend to tolerate a little shit.
>
>Tim in Seattle
>
>
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:27:35 -0500, Carrington, Tom
><tcarrington@relitech.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Joy:
>>
>>Frankly, wrong answer. Period.
>>
>>When I see profanity on the list, I interject. The fact that I unable to
>>check the list mail for few days and it took me a while to respond does
not
>>excuse your posting.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Tim King
>Seattle WA
>87 Syncro Westy/Suby 2.5
>
>
>
>
| 
