Minding One's Manners

What IS appropriate on a philosophical forum is disagreement. In fact, a philosophical forum would be useless without disagreement. Sometimes disagreements get heated. The language of strong disagreement is sometimes strong language. So what. Personal insults are personal insults, whether or not strong language [cursing] is being used. A cleverly worded insult by one a well practiced academic can be a lot more biting than a "Fuck you, asshole" is. In fact, those people not well practiced in insulting people are the ones who resort to cursing. I do not think this forum should be for polite [tight ass] academic types only. Some rules of courtesy might be appropriate, but not enough to remove the colorful characters from solo.

Post 201

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:57am

Mike and Linz,

There's a lesson I learned about three years ago about dealing with women and emotional situations that I will never forget. My wife and I were both on interviews with a company in the same location. My interview went well, my wife's didn't. My wife was generally agitated and we got into an argument about something inconsequential. Was I right? Sure, but that didn't do me much good when I discovered my hotel room completely empty and the rental car gone and wondering what the hell I was going to do.

Luckily, she showed up at the airport for the flight home.

The point of this little story is that sometimes you have to go the extra mile, even when it may not be "rationally" called for. Also, we have to be cognizant of the fact that we have women in our midst or they won't be there long.

Jim

Post 202

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:01pm

Mike:

In your post #200, why are you equating philosophical disagreement with crude language and personal insults? The two do not have to go hand-in-hand. I disagree that a "cleverly worded insult by one (sic.) a well practiced academic" is ever necessary. Insults are personal attacks - not reasoned arguments put forth to support a point of view and possibly convince another person. What value does slinging insults have other than to bolster the weak ego of the insulter? If someone receives a satisfying emotional charge from insulting another person, I would argue that this indicates an undeveloped level of maturity. I could understand (but not excuse) this in a fifth grader, but I am truly puzzled by how much effort and defense of bad language and insults is being proffered here by people old enough to know better.

Could the problem possibly be that, for some people, putting forth a cogent argument that demonstrates some real thinking is just not emotionally satisfying in itself? I ask that in all seriousness. I would like to better understand why people are willing to spend so much effort to defend something that seems to me to not just be lacking in value, but is clearly destructive.

Also, I am not sure why some believe that avoiding insults will drain the "color" from people's personalities. I find Robert Bidinotto to be a truly colorful person because of his ability to combine deep insights with a clever wit. I thought that Jennifer was a very colorful person and so far as I know, she never used a profanity or insulted another person on this forum. The same observation applies to many other here. Exercising more control over one's temper and learning how to think before expressing oneself do not imply a bland demeanor. Find your color in other, more appropriate forms of expression.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 203

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:13pm

James wrote:

The point of this little story is that sometimes you have to go the extra mile, even when it may not be "rationally" called for. Also, we have to be cognizant of the fact that we have women in our midst or they won't be there long.

Are you suggesting men ought to treat all women with kid's gloves or just the ones they marry?

I disagree in general with any form of sexism whether benevolent or malevolent. If you mean we ought to bestow upon our loved ones, regardless of gender, the benefit of the doubt within the bounds of reason, I agree with you. But your statement sounds like a double standard based on gender.

I agree that arguing with the person who has the keys to the car does not serve one's own best interests! In fact, that principle started this thread in the first place.

Post 204

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:31pm

Luke,

What I'm saying is that a little sensitivity can go a long way. Men and women ARE different and while it may not be necessary to treat them with kid gloves, a different mode of communication is often called for. While this may be a generalization, I haven't seen many women on this forum swearing like a sailor. Is that a double standard or a simple observation?

I've been in social situations a lot more tense than this, so this is pretty much water off a duck's back for me. However, there are many people for whom this is not the case and they feel the walls closing in on something very important in their world and they strike out in survival mode. Is that so hard to understand?

Jim

Post 205

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:59pm

I'm beginning to get bored with this subject and am yearning to shift to more positive topics, but I think it is an important one because it is not at root about Solo. It is about the Objectivist movement and alienation, about the dark and bleak and clouded (or hyperaggressive) way Objectivists so frequently see the world and react with it, and about how people should interact with other people in order to have happy and successful lives. (And about how to retain friends and influence people without becoming a panderer or a phony.)

I agree with Robert's highly eloquent post [#192] about all the things wrong with coarseness and crudeness as a way of characteristically engaging the world, how it lowers discourse, how it can alienate the more thoughtful participants. This post is worth clipping and rereading.

Nonetheless, I don't think the -central- issue here is coarse or foul language. Instead, it is what it implies as lying beneath it: contempt or belittlement toward the individual one is engaging, dismissiveness toward the argument he is making or toward seriously engaging the actual issues being discussed. That said, I don't think on Solo, either coarseness or incivility quite rises to the level of, as Jeffery put it, "a steady barrage" of crudeness (and certainly not a steady or general lack of civility.

Yes, there are certain participants and certain heated topics where this occurs, but let's keep a sense of proportion here. Solo in general is a very thoughtful and delightful and benevolent place. It has lots of great people saying lots of interesting, thoughtful, well-written things. And if certain people or posts irritate you, so what? You can easily skip them. Just focus on the people, threads, and issues that most interest you.

Be aware that greater numbers of people attracted to a community is a sign of success but it comes with a price: the influx will more often include people whose company you don't enjoy.

As for solutions, if you persist on focusing on language, you are going to miss the point. An attempt to moderate people for being "crude" or "coarse" or "insulting" would only be dealing with the symptoms. For one thing, it would be too concrete-bound a solution. What one needs to insist on for a community or a personal relationship or a movement not to fall apart is not language per se, but something more abstract and sometimes more subtle. It is an issue of tone and attitude as well as specific words.

It is captured in a single word: civility. Civility means treating people with politeness, courtesy, and respect.

And hopefully not just because you are just going through the motions to not be ostracized, but because you not a dark soul and because you believe they deserve that because people are basically good and so you basically -feel- benevolence not disgust toward them.

Yes, it is a harder to apply and more abstract standard than a checklist of words or phrases. Incivility can be buried or accumulate over time and exchanges. But most reasonable people know it when they see it. And the forum owners (with occasional over- or under-reaction) are fair-minded people with a concern for justice. One ought to be able to see that about Linz: When he overreacted by expelling Newberry, he reversed himself. They seem to me reasonably good at discerning when to moderate or expel someone. Give them time to figure this out. Don't expect that you will agree with every decision or never be annoyed.

And don't demand perfection, unless you're perfect. For too many years in too many concrete instances, when confronted with the slightest degree of error or shortcoming in their heroes or movements, Objectivists have shown the characteristics of the faint of heart: a tendency to bail out in the face of any problem, to throw up our hands in horror, to disengage and lick our wounds in isolation and wounded bitterness, to demonize and shrilly exaggerate and overstate lacking any empathy or sense of proportion or perspective, and to eat our young.

Don't expect that the forum owners or the rest of us won't occasionally be incivil. Don't abandon ship or storm out in anger because occasionally you are upset or alienated. You wouldn't, I hope, do that with a marriage without trying first to build on the positives or a friendship, throwing away the positive remaining values.

Bottom line? Here's my proposed standard for being moderated or worse: Repeated or Characteristic Lack of Civility. (As opposed to occasional or infrequent.)

And then, fer 'Chrissake [oops, crude and coarse word], let's move on.

Phil

Post 206

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:00pm

Linz says:
"...Then she changed her mind. If you want to know why, you'll have to ask her."

I suggest let's do that before assuming anything, and before more blind discussion. I'd like to hear from Jennifer herself and her side of story before forming final opinion.

Post 207

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:34pm

Robert:

Nathan,

I agree with you on the foul language issue. Not because I'm a prude; not because I don't, upon occasion in private settings, use coarse language myself. But a public forum -- particularly one supposedly devoted to "the total passion for the total height" -- shouldn't begin to sound like a gang of drunken bottom-feeders on some street corner, jousting for the lowest position in the gutter.

Thanks for speaking out on this, Robert.

... And it is juvenile and nihilistic. It is all meant to strike a pose of in-your-face defiance of propriety ...

Looks that way to me, too.

Nathan, the best evidence for this is the nasty rejection by some of your simple request for a measure of civility in language here -- and the deliberately mocking obscenities with which that rejection is expressed. That is the response not of mature adults, but the affected posturing of sullen children rebelling against the simple request by their parents to behave like grownups.

The expressions "foot stamping" and "brat" come to mind.

... Her ideal was a celebration of the mind, and of Man at his noblest. But it takes no effort, no thought, no care for nuance or connotation -- in short, no adult sense of responsibility and maturity ...

That's one of the things I've admired about a few on this site: the thoughtful adulthood of their responses.

I recall in one essay that Rand expressed raging anger by saying something like: "A proper response would require the use of the kind of language I do not like to see in print." How much more intelligent and memorable that response, than if she had given in to the urge to be coarse. And yet we find on this "Objectivist" forum not only an abundance of coarseness, but attempts to rationalize it.

I recall that essay, and had it in mind when I responded to this issue.

I've only been a participant on SOLO for about half a year. During that time, I've tried quite hard to craft most of my comments, using a measure of thought and care, and struggling over the precise nuances and connotations of the words I use. I hope it shows. I know that many others here do the same.

Yes. The beauty of written discourse is that it allows us to reflect, and to modify our initial response. I'm sure I'd often regret spewing out the first thought that entered my mind. Sometimes something as subtle as changing "you" to "we" to avoid a paternal and preachy tone is helpful in persuasion.

They are the ones who make visits here worthwhile for me. But others clearly don't bother to try; quite the contrary. In fact, the level of crassness here seems to be escalating. And every time I have to wallow through another intentionally offensive thread, my motivation to remain a participant here wanes.

If this place looked, or ever comes to look, like Usenet, my motivation would wane as well.

...

Given the recent unhappy events here -- all the direct result of intemperance and bad manners -- I suggest to the SOLO owners that they consider imposing on themselves and other participants -- yes, I said imposing -- some basic standards of maturity and civilized language. If some protest that the simple requirements of post-adolescence might inhibit or squelch their "freedom of expression," then I would answer that they must have precious little worthy of expressing to adults -- and someone needs to tell them to please grow up.

LOL But think of all the towering intellects who will leave if they aren't permitted to call someone "asshole" or "motherfucker."

I am struck by the self-righteous True Lies rationalization for spewing gutter verbiage at others. In True Lies the protagonist's wife has just discovered he has been a spy for twenty years:

Helen: Did you ever kill anyone?
Harry: Yah, but they were all bad!

Harry Tasker is under the influence of drugs when he says this, but presumably we have no such excuse.

Nathan Hawking

Post 208

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:43pm

James argued:

What I'm saying is that a little sensitivity can go a long way. Men and women ARE different and while it may not be necessary to treat them with kid gloves, a different mode of communication is often called for. While this may be a generalization, I haven't seen many women on this forum swearing like a sailor. Is that a double standard or a simple observation?

I would generalize this to a gender-neutral principle. In other words, gauge your communication mode based on the behavior of the other person and the desired results.

I for one have grown weary of women and other allegedly "oppressed persons" who demand "equality" then complain when they get it.

Post 209

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:45pm

C. Jeffery Small,

Sigh. I didn't say what you suggest I said. I said "DISAGREEMENTS" are appropriate on a philosophical forum. I DID NOT equate them with crude language and personal insults. I believe you misunderstood what I said. Insults ARE personal attacks and they are put forth AFTER attempts at reasoned argument have failed. And usually after one party continues to misrepresent what the other party is saying. And they are resorted to in anger and frustration NOT to bolster anyones ego.

You say,

"If someone receives a satisfying emotional charge from insulting another person, I would argue that this indicates an undeveloped level of maturity. I could understand (but not excuse) this in a fifth grader, but I am truly puzzled by how much effort and defense of bad language and insults is being proffered here by people old enough to know better.
"

Now, THAT comes close to a personal insult. I tell you, I'm sick of people who think that everyone SHOULD have such a fragile ego that an occasional FUCK YOU sends their sensibilities over the edge. And that's a sign of MATURITY? Brace up, my good man. People have emotions, sometimes they show them. That's more honest than these mealy mouthed partially hidden rhetorical insults.

I am in partial agreement with Phil: "Here's my proposed standard for being moderated or worse: Repeated or Characteristic Lack of Civility. (As opposed to occasional or infrequent.)" I would add: Without apology. Because I think if someone explains or apologizes for their remarks they should be excused.

I'd like to add one more thing: I DO NOT think people should go around insulting and cursing each other all of the time.

Post 210

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:46pm

Phil wrote:

And don't demand perfection, unless you're perfect. For too many years in too many concrete instances, when confronted with the slightest degree of error or shortcoming in their heroes or movements, Objectivists have shown the characteristics of the faint of heart: a tendency to bail out in the face of any problem, to throw up our hands in horror, to disengage and lick our wounds in isolation and wounded bitterness, to demonize and shrilly exaggerate and overstate lacking any empathy or sense of proportion or perspective, and to eat our young.

Don't expect that the forum owners or the rest of us won't occasionally be incivil. Don't abandon ship or storm out in anger because occasionally you are upset or alienated. You wouldn't, I hope, do that with a marriage without trying first to build on the positives or a friendship, throwing away the positive remaining values.

Bottom line? Here's my proposed standard for being moderated or worse: Repeated or Characteristic Lack of Civility. (As opposed to occasional or infrequent.)

And then, fer 'Chrissake [oops, crude and coarse word], let's move on.

To which I can only say, Amen!

The standard you mention *is* in fact the standard we apply. Imperfectly, no doubt. And folk shouldn't get so apocalyptic about the "imperfectly" part. We've all got day jobs, we don't have ARI's or TOC's budget, but we've brought you the best Objectivist web site/discussion forum there is. And Sir Robert, it *does* embody the total passion for the total height. The occasional expletive is hardly going to alter that.

Anyway, excellent sense of perspective, Phil. Obviously that trichotomy bestows extra wisdom! :-)

Linz

Post 211

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:59pm

I'm sorry to all you good folks out there who do not like foul language, but just deal with it. I'm not too surprised by many not liking it, though, because I can understand good taste just as well as the next. Those who read my own posts know that I only resort to foul language very sporadically. If you make a statistical poll of my posts, I would bet that many who think I am an uncouth infantile whatever would be quite surprised.

What really flabbergasts me is the complete blindness that I see on this issue around here.

I am right now on a common sense kick. I don't know why. Since when have Objectivists used common sense? But anyway, foul language on a public forum - even a philosophical forum - used with common sense works just fine. Maybe I have been in another culture too long, but I smell Puritanism raising its ugly head - not in the argument against foul language itself - but in the vehemence that people express in wanting to impose their prudery on others.

How dare they go into a man's house and tell him how to talk there? How dare they tell Linz to not be Linz in his own house? He built his whole public image on KASS, among other things. Most came here knowing that. Now they want to change him?

As far as empirical evidence goes, Solo is growing, not diminishing. Check out the reports Joe posts. I haven't seen any commercials on TV for this to happen. I don't think people who post here are paid to either. So why such growth if foul language is such a detriment? I hear people saying that Solo will die, be weakened, drive off the best and all sorts of speculation. Yet it still grows. You want to know why? Ayn Rand has a wonderful term for how the moralizers evaluate that particular empirical evidence:

Blank-out.

Robert Bidinotto, my friend, I have seen you call someone an asshole on this forum. So what's the big deal against foul language all of a sudden? Or does scatological not count? Did you just grow angel wings? I appreciate your class, I respect you more highly than most posters here, I agree with you on most issues, and I can even understand your perplexity in my response to Nathan (there is a bit more than meets the eye). But are you now seriously proposing a formal language no-no word policy to be imposed by the owners based on prudery? Prudery? You? Come on! We disagree big-time - but go ahead and talk to them about it if you wish.

I can see the seeds of a really horrible idea starting to bloom - that Jennifer left because of the foul language. I believe she left because of a whole bunch of reasons all intertwined, merged and overlapping. I will have to dig it up, but in one post were I got a bit risqu� with the language with her and another poster popped up to complain - she told the guy to get a sense of humor. Jennifer certainly could swear like a sailor when it suited her.

God, do I miss her already!

Right now I think I will go boil some potatoes and stop thinking about picking weeds and killing vermin and varmints for a while.

Well, maybe...

Michael

Post 212

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:04pm

> Obviously that trichotomy bestows extra wisdom!

Yes it does, because it gives me a three-sided perspective on any issue. Thanks for noticing.

Post 213

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:10pm

Philip,

About your Post 205:

(standing ovation)

Thank you very much for that.

(Actually, I read it after I posted my post above - as there seemed to be a huge influx of posts all of a sudden and I read through it all before checking out my own.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/19, 2:12pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/19, 2:14pm)

Post 214

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:21pm

I really like Philip's post #205. He gets beneath the surface of things to some critical issues that I think we should all carefully consider. I actually started to delve into this area myself and a few days ago I crafted an as yet unpublished article for the forum. I am going to include a slightly modified version of the text below, as I now think it fits in better with the recent discussions in this thread. Before I do that, Philip points out that I may be over the top in describing the vindictivness in this forum as "a steady barrage" of crudeness. He has a point. I was really just referring to the past week where things seem to be getting out of control!

Written on the 17th, this is a follow up to Lindsay's post #141.

I saw the exchange Lindsay referenced in the Frank Lloyd Wright discussion and was appalled by it - especially in light of what else is currently transpiring across the board on SOLOHQ! Lindsay ask for comments, so here are mine:

I remember reading in one of Nathaniel Branden's later books about a discussion he was having with another well known individual (who's name escapes me at the moment) who was describing techniques that he proclaimed lead to a much improved, happier life. As I recall, these techniques required many years of meditation to master, so it was impossible for an individual to judge the personal, internal improvements firsthand without first making a considerable investment of time and effort. Nathaniel's response was to instead look for the external results which should certainly manifest and be observable from those practicing the program. The implication was that they were not to be found. What immediately occurred to me from this exchange was that you could apply the same litmus test to Objectivism.

At the age of 13, when I first read Rand's novels, I was struck by the image of the main protagonists interacting with such a high level of rationality and benevolence. This stood in stark contrast to much of what I experienced around me, and was therefore a great inspiration to become the best person I could be and to go forth in search of a better world. I though that associating with other Objectivists (a much more difficult proposition back in the late '60s and early '70s) would be a step in the right direction. Instead of discovering that brave new world, what I encountered were reports of the incomprehensible (at that time) Rand/Branden split, a slowly growing awareness of Rand's dismissal of many other close friends during the course of her life, the continuing purges by Leonard Peikoff, the failures of many Objectivist social clubs to maintain themselves for any period of time, the implosion of one online Objectivist forum after another and frequent bouts of extreme invectiveness, some of which we are discussing here on SOLOHQ at the moment. If Objectivism is "the philosophy for living on earth", why are there so many problems and so much pain?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Objectivists. I have met many great people throughout the years, some of whom are good friends. But, in general, I haven't seen more positive or negative results develop between Objectivists than I do between non-Objectivists and it doesn't seem to me
that we are much closer to Galt's Gulch (metaphorically speaking) now then we were 35 years ago. Why? I have some theories about that which might lead to another article, but for now let's not get sidetracked and stay focused on how this can apply to SOLOHQ.

My question to Lindsay, Joe and Jeff is what are your objectives for this forum?

If I were the owner, my answer would be that I would like to see this Objectivist community extend beyond a simple discussion forum to become a testing and proving ground for some theories on social interaction that could later be extended to wider venues, and in this way, make some concrete steps towards realizing Galt's Gulch - in other words, finding a more harmonious way of living on earth with your fellow man. To put this in more specific terms, I would experiment in order to discover what type of rules and organization would allow a diverse group of individuals who share a common respect for basic Objectivist principles, to thrive creatively, maximize pleasure and be productive. Now, that would be something!

Instead of continuing to carp about who is right or wrong with regard to past transgressions, why don't we take this as an opportunity to explore what has really gone wrong here, learn from our mistakes, come up with some concrete ideas to try out and see if we can make the first step in moving this forum to a higher plain, proving that Objectivism does work. Here are a few preliminary observations and comments:

I do think that we need to put a stop to the abusive exchange that we have seen in recent days. Some people are suggesting that some of these inflammatory comments are made in sport and intended with good humor. I'm sure that there are examples where this is true, but it is very easy to misinterpret a written exchange in the absence of a smile, wink or other body language that often conveys the intended meaning when done in person and I know that I have been insulted and offended by some of what has gone on here recently. Clearly, so have others. There is no need to abandon humor, but as others have pointed out, abuse and insults are something completely different. If a person has a problem being funny in the absence of an insult, I suggest that they take a hard look and check their premises.

I would ask every forum member to take some time to honestly reflect on the reasons they are here. Are you generally looking for enlightenment, friendship, a stimulating discussion, a good knock-down-drag-out argument or something else? Do you have a well thought out policy on what is an appropriate way to interact with others? Do you believe you exercise good emotional control? Have you seriously thought about what respect and benevolence means in practice and do you practice those virtues? Objectivism demands that we ask ourselves these and other questions, come up with appropriate answers and then take responsibility for our actions. In one of his books Nathaniel Branden asks us to consider what would happen if we were 10% more conscious? I suggest that if we all learned to practice this exercise, many difficulties of life would melt away. An oath like the one required for admittance to Galt's Gulch would probably be inappropriate for a forum such as this, but it wouldn't hurt to remember, and occasionally be reminded, that we are Objectivists and that this does imply something concrete in our thoughts and actions. Maybe we should put something concise and poetic into words that reflects the policy of this site.

Despite best intentions, people will make mistakes and do or say some boneheaded thing that will make our blood boil. Let's think about that right now, while we are calm and rational. What kind of person do I want to be and how do I intend to respond the next time this happens? ... Good, now you have your plan. Try to remember it in the moment - or you may find that you just became that bonehead! :-) (See, humor!)

One of the most serious problems we have witnessed has been that Lindsay (primarily) has been left to act as the policeman for the group at large, and this makes him the focus for any resentment that is engendered in the process. I do not think it is fair that he (or Joe or Jeff) bear this burden exclusively, even though they are the forum owners. As Objectivists, if we want to live in a pleasant world with a minimum of authoritarian supervision/intervention, then we need to understand the responsibilities that we must bear to make that world possible. We each need to step up to the plate and do our part. If someone starts acting like a bonehead, we should have the integrity to not only form a moral judgement concerning that behavior, but also be willing to voice our disapproval, simply, clearly and without insults that would only inflame the situation. Calm, rational, peer pressure would probably solve 95% of the problems on this list without making any single individual the "bad cop". This is not an attempt to circumvent property rights. It is just an idea for building a healthier and more effective community which is only as good as the level of participation of its members.

If you are really an Objectivist, then, fundamentally, you do respect the the other forum members and the rights of the forum owners and should be responsive when your aberrant behavior is brought to your attention - especially if there are numerous complaints registered. As an individual, you will ultimately then have to reflect on your conduct and the validity of the criticism and decide what action to take. This might include a change of behavior, possibly an apology or even the choice to leave the forum altogether. On the other hand, if a large number of forum members object to behavior that continues unabated, then it is time for the owners to step in and rectify the situation with moderation or a ban as appropriate.

If a new, flexible policy could be adopted, I would also suggest issuing a blanket amnesty to everyone who has been affected by the recent events and see if we couldn't move forward in a more positive way.

These are just some preliminary ideas. I hope others will come up with different and better ones which could eventually be distilled into a forum policy that integrates both individual expression and property rights within an Objectivist framework. It would be great to continue to refine this site to implement concrete expressions of Objectivist thought such that it becomes an example of how an Objectivist society might actually operate.
--
Jeff

Post 215

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:26pm

Mike:

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements in post #200.
--
Jeff

Post 216

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 3:33pm

Robert B. wrote "at least to stop talking about 'the total passion for the total height.' "

With all the talk of sunlit universes, it's easy to forget the shadows cast by that light, and the bigger the light, the bigger the shadow. Sometimes the answers to our problems lie in those shadows. A little introspection may be in order here. You can only have your sunlight if you acknowledge the shadows. And you can never reach the total height if you don't know your own lows.

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 6/19, 3:34pm)

Post 217

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 3:43pm

Foul language in a public forum? I charge $5 per lesson, with a surcharge of $2.50 if one wishes to learn the magical methods of weaving the two "C's" (c*** and c***) into everyday conversation with your mother or priest.

p.s. sad to see Jen not here. arrived and read bruhaha. angered. sad much. feel like charlie brown, I do. will miss her soul even though didn't know as well as I could I have. sad i missed the opportunity to do so. will refuse to properly capitalize this paragraph, AND will eat 1 qt. of Ben and Jerry's Strawberry Cheesecake Ice Cream with Strawberries & a Thick Graham Cracker Swirl in protest. jen rocks. keep on rockin'.

see ya.

Post 218

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:22pm

I don't understand all the fuss here about foul language. I think we should all just be ourselves and speak as we normally would on the telephone or in person. I neither want nor do I expect people to refrain from swearing just because I am female. If people normally talk differently in the presence of a female, that is their business. Personally, I wish they wouldn't because it seems to interrupt the flow of the conversation.

I like the fact that we can for the most part talk straight to each other here. It is not like this everywhere and it is why I prefer this forum. When I posted to another group and mentioned that I would not want that really creepy guy Stoly near my kids, I promptly received an email from the moderator smacking me down for my incivility. Oh puleeeze. I couldn't believe it. When people tell me how I should talk and go out of their way to show me manners, I resent it.

There was even a time here, when Jennifer directly attacked me and all but called me a come-guzzling-gutter-slut because of my purring, and it seemed that everyone jumped on the bandwagon and attacked me and Michael...and then came the poll. That really hurt. At the time I was already licking my wounds because a very good friend had died. I was very hurt and quite pissed, but rather than attacking back, I stayed quiet. Jennifer eventually apologized I started the purr alert thing and things quieted down. Apparently she was licking some wounds at the time as well.

What I am seeing here now is a call for much stricter moderation almost to the point of censorship. I for one think it is overreacting to the situation. Foul language did not chase Jennifer away. It was much more political than that. I believe she and Jason were pawns in Elmore's powerplay. They cussed and insulted along with the rest of us and Jennifer was world renown as the queen of innuendo. To say that the language and insults drove these people away from Solo is rather a stretch in my view.

If people wish to restrain or moderate themselves as far as how they post, it is their own business. That it should be a policy from management here is taking it too far. Swearing is not the equivalent to being a troll or even an asshole. People have different ways of expressing themselves and Solo is one of the rare places where we are still allowed free expression. We pretty much monitor ourselves and when people are too far out of line, they are rightfully hooted down. It is not swearing or how they say things that are generally the issue. It is what is being said.

Kat

*purr alert*
Michael, I really like it when you talk dirty.... purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Post 219

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:40pm