Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:12:56 -0400
Reply-To: Rowan Tipton <uther@DRAGONHOME.ORG>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Rowan Tipton <uther@DRAGONHOME.ORG>
Subject: Re: Friday mod discussion - language
In-Reply-To: <4d8e81e3.914ee50a.5f15.4ecf@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Speaking as a member of what must be the oldest generation on the list (those born durning
WW2) I have no problem with any language at all. That said, I also have no problem with the
current rule. I think of it as classroom formal. When I was a college prof I insisted that my
students spoke formal english during classes, seminars, etc. So if we want to think of this as
a seminar I'm fine following the "no bad language" rule. If we want to think of us as a bunch
of friends getting together and talking VWs over a beer then language rules seem silly.
As far as kids go, I think that it is their parents responsibility to teach them how to talk and
where to talk it. It is not my duty to talk the way those parents might find comfortable.
r
On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:15 PM, David Beierl wrote:
> Speaking as a listmember...
>
> At 02:00 PM 3/25/2011, Marius Strom wrote:
>> the egregious stuff, but the little stuff should slide. As an
>> example, in my opinion the random f-bomb on the list (or
>> questionably agreeable acronym) is fully appropriate. I'd bet we'd
>> be hard-pressed to find someone here who hasn't uttered something
>> shrewd to their own ride once-in-a-while. Granted, members of the
>> community should use the same consideration that they'd use in their
>> day-to-day life, while out walking on the street. It's not
>> appropriate to string together a series of f-bombs targeted at
>> someone for the sake of doing it, but it is appropriate to cuss at
>> the f'ing design of the cooling tower (as an example) :).
>
> The way it was expressed by previous moderators was that you should
> be able to have your little kid reading over your shoulder without
> worrying about what he (she) would see, or what you'd have to
> explain. Or to say another way, G-rated.
>
> Now the question has nothing at all to do with what we say on our own
> time. That's a straw man but since I've heard it a bunch of times in
> this discussion (did you think you started it? <g>) it brings up the
> first of two generational questions I wish to pose. This isn't
> pointed at you, Marius, but at an entire generation or perhaps two,
> and not just here on the list: Can't you kids [generic reference by
> old fogeys for anyone ten years or more younger than they are]
> understand the difference between what you do at home or on the
> street, and what you do in another man's living room? A lot of us
> old folks swear like sailors. Some of us *were* sailors. When we
> write back and forth to each other we swear. But we don't swear on
> the list, and it doesn't bother us not to, and it does bother us to hear it.
>
> The second generational question is this: The people having children
> these days are the same generation(s) who seem to have lost any
> concept of taboo language. On the basis that it's their kids, is it
> time for us old fogeys to let be and let the present child-bearing
> generation define what's acceptable language here?
>
> a) Does that generation agree that it's fine for their kids to be
> reading swears on the list?
>
> b) If even a few disagree, does that make it not ok (in my opinion, yes)?
>
> c) Supposing the entire childbearing population of the list agree
> that swears are no problem for their kids - how does that affect the
> overall civility of the list and the comfort of the older and/or more
> strait-laced volks here?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Yrs,
> David
Blessed be!
Rowan )O(
| 
