Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 01:33:26 -0700
Reply-To: BenT Syncro <syncro@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: BenT Syncro <syncro@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: MOD clarification re cursing and language in general
In-Reply-To: <4aa21cb0.03015a0a.039b.3218@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Just so it is clear, I may appear absent from this discussion but
truth of the matter is the opposite. David and I may occasionally have
differing views like most people from different parts of the world and
residing on opposite ends of this Country. However, we are on the same
plane concerning the level of civility in this forum.
That said, this thread is peobably wearing a hole in most people's
delete key and patience. Let us please get back to the business of
Vanagons.
Cheers,
BenT
Sent from my mobile device
On Sep 5, 2009, at 1:09 AM, David Beierl <dbeierl@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Dear Volks,
>
> I think I've explained myself poorly on this issue, and I
> apologize. On a personal level I don't particularly give, if you'll
> pardon the expression, a rat's behind whether someone else curses,
> whether they intend it or not or even if they're cursing me. It's
> none of my business and I have plenty to do watching what I myself
> do. However, it is a serious matter to both Christians and Jews,
> and many of them don't have my laissez-faire attitude and find it
> deeply disturbing/distressing. Some of those people are on this
> list, and some of them have expressed their gratitude about this
> stance. It's not civil to disturb people unnecessarily, and that's
> that.
>
> People, particularly people of different generations, have many
> different attitudes about coarse language in general, and we neither
> can nor will try to change them here. We have at least four
> generations on this list, and both extremes have to bend, but not
> enough to truly satisfy either one. I personally wouldn't mind
> shifting the balance a bit toward the older folks (forgive the
> generalization, I know that all attitudes exist in all generations),
> but I have no intention, nor do I think Ben has any, of trying to do
> that. As people more and more bring their concerns to the
> moderators, instead of either remaining silent or airing them in
> public, the balance will adjust itself to the list instead of the
> list to the balance. As people learn to trust more and more that we
> are, as I believe, fair and disinterested (not *un* interested) this
> will continue to happen more and more readily, and we will become
> less and less visible.
>
> Most of what we've talked about language today has to do with
> children. This list has always made special accommodation for
> children, but it has gotten a bit muddied recently, so we're working
> to put it back in shape.
>
> Thank you all very much. I don't expect to be around much tomorrow
> (today actually), or the next day so I apologize in advance if I'm
> tardy in responding to you.
>
> Yours,
> David
> ps -- There has been a bit of confusion, so to be clear: the "damn"
> thread isn't closed, although I don't particularly encourage it
> going further. It is only the part wishing to discuss the merits or
> lack thereof of religion that is closed.
>
| 
