About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Artistic Endeavors
But Can You Dance to It?
Cult of the Dead Cow
Literary Genius
Making Money
No Laughing Matter
On-Line 'Zines
Science Fiction
Self-Improvement
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

A bunch of people discuss the pros and cons of di

Ezra Kilogram #1 @5300
Sun Dec 16 11:28:24 1990
The following are messages extracted from the Oregon Chatter sub `hosted' by
Captain Quirk. I thought some of you might like to take a look at what some
sysops find to be good practice. Here is yet another reason why moderators,
idiotic hosts, syshits, and fundies should take a hike from the BBS world if
they want to force their idiocies on others. To each their own delusion.

Something worth noting is that "Otto", "Grouch", and "Ezra Kilogram" (who is
not active in this) are all the same person.
==================================================================
6/50: Why?
Name: Otto #118 @5311
Date: Thu Dec 06 23:58:00 1990
From:^Milliway's (Oregon)

RE: Language and this Sub....

[bunch of reasons to not use `dirty' language]

Perhaps the problem is not with the words themselves being `bad' but the
people have been told to think `bad' things when they hear them. Looking at
this from sociolinguistics-- all words are neutral, and it's the people that
have `dirty' minds who find shitting to be unpleasant and done only be poor
people while royalty does something different. Looking at this from the
approach of semantics (almost any form will do), once again it's nothing to do
with the explicit meaning (denotation) of the word but pig headed mother
fuckers who find the previous to be a problem, and have a response due to
connotation which are CULTURAL.

Screw `dirty' language. If you don't like it then change your mind, not
constrain the language.

==================================================================

7/50: 3 comments:
Name: Ford Prefect #1 @5311
Date: Fri Dec 07 00:22:26 1990
From:^Milliway's (Oregon)

1. Otto, for once, mellow out, please. I'm not hosting, and since we both
have submitted enough to write the WWIVnet Guide, we don't need to go into it.
I agree, but it ain't my sub.

2. This sub: I have asked Captain Quirk this as well. Is this going to be a
sub like the or.general UUCP newsgroup? If so, then I think we need to make a
distinction about the name. If this is for political discussions, then let's
call it Oregon Politics and keep the Chatter for a couple of the messages that
have been here about BBS lists, etc. I don't care as long as it isn't JUST
for politics, but I see a lot of indicators in that direction.

3. Measure 5: I voted against it, but consider this from a property owner's
perspective. Oregon has the highest property tax rate in the nation. I think
that those who don't want to pay more than they're already paying have a
point, even if I don't agree with it myself. Sure measure 5 was NOT the
answer to the problem, but now we're stuck with it, so we'll have to do the
best we can, won't we?

==================================================================

21/50: Language..
Name: David Burns #15 @5312
Date: Sun Dec 09 13:50:07 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: Why?

That's true; it is cultrual. In this culture, there are constraints on
language, both in denotaion and connotation. While sh-- is 'leagal' as a verb
or noun, there are preferable words, and it should not be used as an
exclamation or modifier (sh-ty, etc), ever. pig headed mother -------- is not
appropriate in any polite conversation. If you must accuse someone of incest,
then do so expicidly, not graphicly. If you cannot constrain yourself, then
use one of the words that doesn't begin with an 'f,' not because these words
are bad, but because they are offensive to people. If it is you intention to
offend people with your words, then you acting in a anti-social manner, and
the SYSOP of Millway's would be well within his rights to restrict or remove
your net access, or lock you out entirely.

==================================================================

25/50: language
Name: Jim Buntjer #92 @5312
Date: Sun Dec 09 23:04:25 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: Why?

Your argument is interesting, but our great and glorious Sysop says no and
that we cannot even use symbols for the letters. So language from this sector
will be "clean".

At least from me.

==================================================================

31/50: More horse pucky from the capital.
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Tue Dec 11 23:06:23 1990

RE: Language..

> RE: Why?
>
> That's true; it is cultrual. In this culture, there are constraints
> on language, both in denotaion and connotation. While sh-- is
> 'leagal' as a verb or noun, there are preferable words, and it should
> not be used as an exclamation or modifier (sh-ty, etc), ever. pig
> headed mother -------- is not appropriate in any polite conversation.
> If you must accuse someone of incest, then do so expicidly, not
> graphicly. If you cannot constrain yourself, then use one of the
> words that doesn't begin with an 'f,' not because these words are bad,
> but because they are offensive to people. If it is you intention to
> offend people with your words, then you acting in a anti-social
> manner, and the SYSOP of Millway's would be well within his rights to
> restrict or remove your net access, or lock you out entirely.
>

I think you're playing around with some buzzwords, Mr. Doublespeaker. First
of all, there are no CONSTRAINTS in our culture pertaining to the denotation
or connotation of any word, other than the lexical class of the object
(specific distribution, not some idiotic prescriptivist's nightmare of `noun
is a person place or thing'; `verb is an action or a state of being'; etc..).
Some lexical categories simply cannot take certain arguments. Now you COULD
argue that this is a "contraint on the word" but it is the FUNCTION of the
lexical category-- not a constraint. While your garden variety teacher or
professor might tell you otherwise, the study currently called "linguistics"
will tell you otherwise (specifically: semantics, x-formational grammr, Tarski
Criterio, Katz-Fodor semantics, psycholingiustics, sociolinguistics, Cloze
structures, etc... JUST ABOUT EVERY AREA!).

Now, given that your original statement was wrong, I could just finish this
message but that would be much too simple.

"Pig headed mother fucker" is quite appropriate in many conversations. When
I'm getting drunk with some friends, that sentence (actually, utterences are
time dependent..not sentences) is quite appropriate. Now, were I sitting in
the middle of lecture on butchering pigs, it might be appropriate too if I
wanted to draw an analogy between someone's physical appearance and pigs, and
do so due to the current sublanguage being used (in this case: pigs, butchery,
anatomy, etc..). In a few linguistics classes I've used and heard the
instructor use phrases that make the above seem quite light.

We now have three cases where the above is appropriate, killing yet another
part of your argument.

You say that these "bad" words are offensive to people. Really? Do you speak
for every single person in the network who has the potential to ever read this
sub? EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY PERSON, David. I for one am not offended, so your
universal statement (applied to the universe being this sub) dies. Sorry, but
my language just doesn't offend _people_, which is being used to refer to the

==================================================================

32/50: Clean vs. Dirty
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Tue Dec 11 23:10:05 1990

RE: language

> RE: Why?
>
> Your argument is interesting, but our great and glorious Sysop says no
> and that we cannot even use symbols for the letters. So language from
> this sector will be "clean".
>
> At least from me.
>

CLEAN DIRTY
-----------------------------------------------------
having sex, fornicating, fucking, humping, etc..
making love to, etc..
-----
having a bowel movement, taking a shit, shitting,
having a BM, Number 2, taking a dump, dumping, etc..
passing, purging, etc..
-----
etc...

WHY is one clean and the other dirty? Sorry, but there is no connection. If
people are insecure about their biological actions then I suggest that they
kill themselves.

==================================================================

33/50: The limited amount of sentient beings on this sub
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Tue Dec 11 23:10:55 1990

If you were offended by the above messages, why didn't you exercise your
ability to abort the message?

==================================================================

34/50: the elimination of stupidity
Name: Vagrant #1 @5313
Date: Mon Dec 10 15:59:54 1990
From: [Rubber] Room 101 (Oregon)

RE: Welcome to another BBS!
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

This is a test message.

[R]Rm101 is located in rainy, miserable Beaver Town, OR.

==================================================================

35/50: To: D---- B----
Name: Vagrant #1 @5313
Date: Mon Dec 10 16:06:45 1990
From: [Rubber] Room 101 (Oregon)

RE: Language..
BY: David Burns #15 @5312

Just 'cause you're bound by irrational cultural taboos, it doesn't mean you
should discourage others from attempting to eliminate such superstitions.
What is "appropriate" should not be defined by you (or the so-called
"fundementalists" who've brainwashed society) - it should be agreed upon by
the individuals involved in the conversation. Whether somebody decides to say
"You sysop!" or "You running-dog crypto-fascist hate-mongering neo-nazi
operator of a machine intended for remote use via the telephone networks!" the
same is said. People who react to the word "poop" then go visit the head seem
to be a bit hypocritical.

(BAN THE JOHN)

==================================================================

38/50: Lary and Nancy..
Name: David Burns #15 @5312
Date: Wed Dec 12 01:06:14 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: To: D---- B----

No, it what is appropriate should not be defined by me. Or you. Our host is
the Cap'n.. (host of the net, and for us, also host on his computer...) He
said, "keep it clean." I read later he decided to be a bit more lax about
it-- his decision...

Very few people have a problem with 'poop,' but there are some other words...
Also, you arguement is invalid when people use these words in a way
inconsistant with their litteral meanings. ie, 'shit' is a verb, or a noun...
nothing else... (past tence is 'shat,' by the way.. as if anyone really gave
a...... uh, cared.)

I'm told that there are no words in Japanees that are taboo... most Americans
would go crazy if they had to think of outragious ideas, and couldn't just
shock people with bad language.

/a

==================================================================

42/50: Clean vs. Dirty: the reason.
Name: David Burns #15 @5312
Date: Thu Dec 13 02:31:40 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: Clean vs. Dirty

The reason is how you use it, and in what context.

Here is (basicaly) what is meant by no 'dirty language.':

Allowed Dissallowed
--------------------------------------
to shit OH, ----

when your here, where the
drunk, with conference host
friends has said to keep
it clean...

Your right; there is no utterance that is inappropreat in all cases, and I
don't speak for everyone.

BUT there are times and places where it is socialy important to watch one's
tounge..

==================================================================

43/50: Well, yer wrong
Name: Sphincter Boy #13 @5312
Date: Thu Dec 13 17:25:55 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: Lary and Nancy..

There are slang Japanese words... Kuso is one... and there are others I have
written down somewhere. They just aren't used very often, as the Japanese are
nicer than us... but after taking it for three years, I do know they can cuss.
And there are much better ways of insulting people... (Such as talking to your
elders as if they were a friend, or talking to a guy as if he was a girl, etc.
etc.)

==================================================================

44/50: Otto.......
Name: Captain Quirk #1 @5312
Date: Thu Dec 13 18:38:45 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: More horse pucky from the capital.

Otto,

You are going out of your way to use language of this Sub that I find
offensive. This is not a Dr. Ruth Sub, not a Psychology Sub, not a History of
Language Sub, and not a hundred other types of Subs. This is a chatter Sub, We
all gather 'round the pickle barrel, and pass some time talking. Now, this
Pickle barrel isn't in the middle of a field, it's in someone's home- mine in
fact. It is only common courtesy to respect that home, and not make messes in
the corners.

Now, when I started this Sub, I set a few rules for conduct here. You posted
back, violating those rules but you were trying to make a point. Our AC,
Ford, even agreed with you. OK... I can live with a few words now and then,
after all I want this to be OUR Sub, so I relaxed my absolutely no swear
words rule.

Point made, rule changed, everythings fine right? NO.

You seem to think that your dissussion of taboo words in our society has
found a home. It hasn't. You will stop posting messages on this subject. Per
Net rules. Any further posts from you with any word stronger than "Darn" and
you will be terminated from this Sub. Period. Don't bother to argue.

I, as of this post, am reinstiuting my "No swearwords rule". I will not put
up with a sewer in my home. I don't permit it in my local Sub, and see no
reason to put up with it in my Netted Sub. This Rule by the Way includes the
use of !@#$$$ subsituted for letters in words. A word made up ENTIRLY of
those charactors is permissable.

==================================================================

45/50: Yikes ! Otto <---- Better watch out pal
Name: Boss2 #34 @5304
Date: Fri Dec 14 05:33:43 1990

RE: Otto.......

Otto:

I guess you've have been told to stop using those taboo words. For shame, we
shouldn't discuss the real world while "sitting around the pickel barrel"

This reminds me of a bunch of virgins.

==================================================================

47/50: Really?
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:15:59 1990

RE: Clean vs. Dirty: the reason.

>BUT there are times and places where it is socialy important to watch one's
>tongue..

Yes. Remember to watch your tongue and keep rigid tongue protocol when
licking the end-of-the-large-intestine of the moderator.

I already stated that things are appropriate for different areas of formality.
I'm sorry that I used words which were not in your dictionary, or are you too
lazy to look things up?

==================================================================

48/50: Is our host THAT dumb?
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:24:07 1990

RE: Otto.......

Dear Mr. Host,

I am afraid to inform you of this, but linguistics and chatter are not
mutually exclusive topics. If you think that the discussions pertaining to
linguistics which were being used to defend opinions on language are in any
way inappropriate for this sub, then I would suggest sticking your head in a
blender and going full blast with it. Please do not feed the resulting
product to the fish. I would hate to think that like tapeworms eating their
brothers (RNA soup, a la John Brunner) they might end up being idiots and
totally ignorant of semantic knowledge, whereas the worms learned to move
chess pieces; no sh?t-- it's in a SIGART issue from 88 or 89.

If you in any way think that we are at all impressed by your behavior think
again.

If you think that this sub is stationed at you're house, I would suggest
reading netref.doc, which should have been included with the network package.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but all your machine does is keep a listing
of who you say is in the sub and distribute CC's of the messages to them. You
are not God, although you might think you are. All BBSes which carry this sub
carry this sub "in ther home" and not just yours.

Perhaps you should give up your analogy and face what's really going on.
Before you join any network you should at least try to make yourself familliar
with the technical aspects of the network.

You might as well kill this message. I'm sure that it's hurt your ego too
much to allow out on the network.
Ezra Kilogram #1 @5300
Sun Dec 16 11:28:35 1990
49/50: Virgin ears, virgin minds, virgin eyes..F?CK VIRGINS!
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:25:10 1990

RE: Yikes ! Otto <---- Better watch out pal

> RE: Otto.......
>
> Otto:
>
> I guess you've have been told to stop using those taboo words. For
> shame, we shouldn't discuss the real world while "sitting around the
> pickel barrel"
>
> This reminds me of a bunch of virgins.

Boss2: I dunno about you, but don't you think that the above title is more
suggestive and `dirty' than simply putting the 'u' in there? These people are
f?cked in the head.

==================================================================

50/50: Again, Mr. Moderator: ARE YOUR THAT DUMB?
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:29:23 1990

Dear Mr. Moderator's Brain:

Hopefully this has not made it into /dev/null land.

I would like to ask you yet another question. Yes-- this one will be just as
taxing as the previous one, so you better go get daddy and mummy to help you
with this one.

If this sub is for the people, which I suppose is what you mean when you say
it is "OUR" sub, exactly which ones do you mean?

Since I am not supposed to post on here, or at least I'm not allowed to post
on the topic of profanity and the insecurities of our culture, I don't see how
this could possible be "OUR" sub without me being included. Since I was the
target of your message, I would be included in "OUR".

Please pay more attention in the future. Mummy and Daddy may be loaning you
this machine for the weekend to run a BBS on, however I don't think they have
told you anything about network culture, especially not WWIVnet.

If anything else confuses you, I'm sure that Ezra Kilogram would be more than
happy to answer any questions for you.

-- Otto[0] : the original member

==================================================================

21/40: THOUGHT: IT ONLY HURTS THE FIRST TIME
Name: Vagrant #1 @5313
Date: Thu Dec 13 17:36:49 1990

RE: Lary and Nancy..
BY: David Burns #15 @5312

From the anus of D---- B---- (#15 @5312) flowed:

| No, it what is appropriate should not be defined by me.

Then explain the following:

On <Sun Dec 09 13:50 1990> D---- B---- (#15 @5312) wrote:
| While sh-- is 'leagal' [sic] as a verb or noun, there are preferable words
| ...it should not be used as an exclamation or modifier (sh-ty, etc), ever.
| pig headed mother -------- is not appropriate in any polite conversation.
| If you must accuse someone of incest, then do so expicidly, not graphicly.
| If you cannot constrain [sic] yourself, then use one of the words that
| doesn't begin with an 'f,' not because these words are bad, but because
| they are offensive to people. If it is you intention to offend people
| with your words, then you [sic] acting in a [sic] anti-social manner, and
| the SYSOP of Milliway's would be well within his rights to restrict or
| remove your net access, or lock you out entirely.

You told your audience WHAT is appropriate. You told your audience what
"should" be used in place of taboo words. You ordered your audience not to
use slang. You claimed that if a word is abhorred by neophobes, then the
word should never be used. You defined "anti-social" as "intentionally
offensive" (perhaps in your tiny reality, not in mine), and you've licensed
sysops to delete users whom you see as "anti-social." You assumed that
being "anti-social" is, by default, inappropriate and punishable by
censorship.

You then said, "What is appropriate should not be defined by me."

Does anyone else sense a bit of hypocrisy?

P.S. 1@5311 would find it _very_ difficult to lock me out of @5313.
Furthermore, he'd find it difficult to kill my Oregon Chatter feed without
dropping @5313 from the net. To cut a system from a sub is supposedly the
host's prerogative, and the host has voiced no objection to this debate.

P.P.S. What the hell gave you the idea that people who use "bad" words are
unable to control themselves?

==================================================================

22/40:
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Thu Dec 13 23:48:25 1990

RE: Lary and Nancy..
BY: David Burns #15 @5312

> RE: To: D---- B----
>
> No, it what is appropriate should not be defined by me. Or you. Our
> host is the Cap'n.. (host of the net, and for us, also host on his
> computer...) He said, "keep it clean." I read later he decided to be
> a bit more lax about it-- his decision...

The only person who has any say-so of what goes on in this sub is the host.
It doesn't matter what the people inbetween think. So goes network policy,
which is something I am very familliar with.
>
> Very few people have a problem with 'poop,' but there are some other
> words... Also, you arguement is invalid when people use these words in
> a way inconsistant with their litteral meanings. ie, 'shit' is a
> verb, or a noun... nothing else... (past tence is 'shat,' by the
> way.. as if anyone really gave a...... uh, cared.)

What makes you think that "shit" can only be used as a verb or a noun? It's
already been pretty well shown that words change meanings and oftentimes drift
from one lexical category to the next. "Shit" with any number of derivational
affixes added to its noun or verb form can be used for just about anything.
You've got some shitty ideas (as an example).

This is REALLY funny:
>Also, you [sic] arguement [sic] is invalid when people use these words
>in a way inconsistant with their litteral meanings.

Literal meaning is not defined by lexical category. Ever heard of metaphor?
It's one of the really major problems semantic theorists have to face and
usually die of heart attacks from.

Shit, man, you don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Shit, in the above, was an ejaculatory.

I could go on for hours about this. Do you know anything at all about what it
is that you're suggesting? Language is something that people DO, not
something that people follow. Syntax is not a set of laws that people know.
Syntax is a description of what people do.

Eat a brick and choke.

==================================================================

23/40: Obvious, Vagrant.
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Thu Dec 13 23:51:58 1990

RE: THOUGHT: IT ONLY HURTS THE FIRST TIME
BY: Vagrant #1 @5313

>P.P.S What the hell gave you the idea that people who use "bad" words
>are unable to control themselves?

Vagrant, you should know by now that this is someone who will never be able to
define what makes a bad word bad, much like the Supremely Boring Court cannot
define pornography: "I don't know what it is, but I know what it is when I see
it!" I really don't think that this person has any knowledge whatsoever when
it comes to language (a GENERAL term, not a specific language) or linguistics
(very similar to language, but this is an actual field with a hell of a lot of
subfields).

I suggest that people simply try to hammer it into him that he is an idiot.

I retract the "idiot": he's a grapefruit. Pure and simple.

Someone, please hand me a vegomatic.

==================================================================

33/40: You sy?op!
Name: Vagrant #1 @5313
Date: Fri Dec 14 18:23:00 1990

RE: Otto.......
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

This is not a flame. This is not a personal attack on the host. This
post does not contain "bad" words, though it may contain bad grammar.
This post is written in defense of Otto@5304, who has been prohibited from
defending himself.

[responding to a message originally to Otto (#1 @5300)]

In a message on <18:38 13 Dec 1990>, C*ptain Quirk (1@5312) wrote:

| You are going out of your way to use language of this Sub that I find
| offensive. This is not a Dr. Ruth Sub, not a Psychology Sub, not a History
| of Language Sub, and not a hundred other types of Subs. This is a chatter
| Sub, We all gather 'round the pickle barrel, and pass some time talking.
| Now, thisPickle barrel isn't in the middle of a field, it's in someone's
| home- mine infact. It is only common courtesy to respect that home, and
| not make messes in the corners.

The notion of a sub existing solely within the home of the host is quite
myopic. This fallacy is often tossed about in defense of nearly anything
a sysop does. On local bulletin boards, the metaphor is semi-applicable.
On statewide "chatter" subs (Is chatter about linguistics not chatter? It
certainly is a hot political issue.), the echo exists within the home of
every receiving system and every user who calls to read and/or contribute.
The fact is that most messages exist first on remote systems and are send
to @5312 for distribution.

| Now, when I started this Sub, I set a few rules for conduct here. You
| posted back, violating those rules but you were trying to make a point.
| Our AC, Ford, even agreed with you. OK... I can live with a few words
| now and then, after all I want this to be OUR Sub, so I relaxed my
| absolutely no swear words rule.

Answer a few questions: why can't you live with certain "swear" words? Why
do you abhorr particular idioms while condoning the usage of others? Why
haven't you justified your unwillingness to transcend irrational
socio-economic and political conditioning? Why can't you just press your
space bar and allow others to decide how to pull the wool over their own
eyes? If you're truely correct, you'll provide adequate answers, and I'll
properly adjust my positions.

| You seem to think that your dissussion of taboo words in our society has
| found a home. It hasn't. You will stop posting messages on this subject.
| Per Net rules. Any further posts from you with any word stronger than
| "Darn" and you will be terminated from this Sub. Period. Don't bother to
| argue.

It's interesting that you've ordered a linguistics major (an individual with
far greater knowledge of the topic at hand than you) to shut up. Moreover,
you've booted him from a conversation even if he DOESN'T USE something
stronger than "darn." It couldn't possibly be because he happens to
disagree with you and is presenting very strong arguments against those of
your policies' proponents, could it?

You should be able to defend your policies. Otherwise, you should commend
whoever revealed their inadequacy and change or abolish them. Censoring
people who challenge your restrictions because you cannot refute their
arguments does lends NO credence to your position.

| I, as of this post, am reinstiuting my "No swearwords rule". I will not
| put up with a sewer in my home. I don't permit it in my local Sub, and
| see no reason to put up with it in my [n]etted [s]ub. This [r]ule[, b]y
| the [w]ay, includes the use of !@#$$$ subsituted for letters in words.
| A word made up ENTIRLY [sic] of those charactors [sic] is permissable.

Why? You know [darn] well that "I'm gonna take a ????" doesn't refer to
theft of Wash- ^ ington Park Zoo's seal collection. I doubt that anyone
metaphorically | present can repress themselves to such extent.
|
Approved!

Thus, if swear words are as "bad" as you claim they are, all euphemisms
should be prohibited.

If you're going to warn or censor me because I happened to stand up for my
beliefs in this post, I'd appreciate it if you'd provide concrete
justification for your actions. Net rules may ignore the opinions of the
average user by claiming that a host needs only to say, "CUZ I SAID SO!" but
that doesn't excuse the host in question.

Personally, I find the word "SYSOP" intolerable, though I can live with
"SY?OP". Hence, I request that all users drag their minds from the gutter
and refer to system operators ONLY as "Operators of BBS". Thank you.

---
* "Approved!" (C)opywrong Otto, July 1990, etc. etc.
---

==================================================================

[deleted]

35/40: True!
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:30:31 1990

RE: Clean vs. Dirty: the reason.
BY: David Burns #15 @5312

>BUT there are times and places when it is socially important to watch
>one's tongue..

Yes, like when licking the ass of the host.

==================================================================

[deleted]

36/40: BOYCOTT
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:33:22 1990

RE: Otto.......
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

Host man:

I'm glad to see that general chatter excludes discussions that occur on the
fly which may not be what the host wants. Wonderful to see how this sub is
for people, yet the host says no way.

That's ok. The nice thing about WWIVnet is when you don't like something,
instead of fixing it your ?@$?@#$ it.

==================================================================

[deleted]

37/40: Vagrant: better watch out...Santa Clause be making a list!
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:44:01 1990

RE: You sy?op!
BY: Vagrant #1 @5313

Vagrant:

This isn't the first time that another sysop has decided that just becuase
they're new to the network they understand the culture of WWIVnet and the
goings on. I remember when I got booted from @20's old Sysop sub (where I was
doing a lot of question answering and network policy rapping with folks, and
the initial backbone[head] setups, HST fixing, etc..) for making a network
political statement. What, pray tell, did little old moi do? Well, I decided
to call over-glorified BBS users what they are. They aren't sysops, they're
sysh[aeiou]t ((yeah, it's a vowel!)).

Sysh[aeiou]ts are under the impression that they actually can command what
policy says they can. I don't know who this host is: I've never heard of him,
and I've been bouncing around WWIVnet from about day 10. So, we've got
another nubie online who wants to host a sub (after I suggest it on Inner
Sanctum) and has decided to use a policy which is IDIOTIC. Using force, which
is exactly what a policy is, without any justification through prior events,
is stupid. It does nothing more than cause problems.

I didn't realize until recently that using linguistic `truths' on BBSes was
illegal. I think it's against the Grapefruit Convention or something like
that. Somewhere we've got something like this:

Clause 410.B.123-12342178.13123123, addendum 123123.sub5778.s234[1]:
No BBS user who has majored in Linguistics for more than 10
seconds may post a message on a chatter sub, newgroup, echo,
forum, or room, which contains any knowledge dealing with
their focused topic of study. All messages will be regarded
as personal attack upon the host of said sub. Violators will
be towed at the expense of the owner. No spitting, cussing,
walking on the grass, or freedom of speech.

You probably understand this, but far be it for the host. By now most of us
are used to idiots.

Because of this, 1@5300 will be establishing a Oregon\General-Chatter sub to
go in parallel with the sub @5306 took over. Should be fun. Sign up now.

==================================================================

[deleted]

38/40: I would like to correct a message.
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:45:51 1990

RE: True!
BY: Grouch #10 @5313

> RE: Clean vs. Dirty: the reason.
> BY: David Burns #15 @5312
>
>>BUT there are times and places when it is socially important to watch
>>one's tongue..
>
> Yes, like when licking the [*] of the host.

[*] For various reasons, the above * used to be one of those four letter words
which only had three letters, yet is still a four letter word. It refers to a
part of all asses (the animal) that sticks out.

==================================================================

[deleted]

39/40: Vagrant
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sat Dec 15 00:48:10 1990

Well, Vague, looks like things will be a bit more CLOSEMINDED around here from
now on. Since Otto and Grouch are heading off to places which better reflect
the openmindedness that the state or Oregon is known for, namely
Oregon\General-Chatter, the little linguistics discussion will probably be
openned up on there.

Looks like we openned a can of worms, eh?

We know by now that logic is something that hosts can't stand. When they're
wrong they can't stand it. When they're right they can't shut up about it.
Much like all fanatical fundamentalists. Someone call a Mystic!

==================================================================

40/40: You call this CHATTER?
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:00:16 1990

To: Host, Vargant, all concerned readers

This is called a chatter sub-- yet people are not allowed to talk about things
such as psychology, linguistics, sex, etc.. People are intended to sit around
the metaphorical "pickle barrel" talking things that the host approves of.

Who is this host? Well, I've been in and around WWIVnet from about day 10.
For the likes of me, I don't seem to remember seeing this guy around before he
got is node number-- which couldn't have been more than a few weeks back.
Just how well does this guy understand the culture and happenings of WWIVnet?
Just between all of us, I think this guy should look at Fight-o-net where
moderators are God's gift to powermongers seeking a position.

Why is this sub called a chatter sub if _chatter_ is not allowed on it?
Chatter is, according to my abridged dictionary, not exactly something that
people need to think too highly of. It's a shame that WWIVnet is still
getting people straight off of the turnip truck that want to strut their
administrative stuff and take it upon themselves to moderate via censorship
instead of through letting things roll as they go.

Anyone here been around long enough (sysops and the various gossip folks of
WWIVnet) to've been on @20's Network Sysops' sub when @20 decided to put
constraints on topics and language? In week one I pretty well used these very
same examples [that were given here] and after the first message was removed
for the word "syshit", which I used to refer to the host of the sub and all
other overzelous sysops. Soon after @man (anyone remember _him_? I bet the
host of this sub doesn't even know that @man is a legal name) did the same
thing, only peppered the message with quite a bit more constructive language.
Soon after someone else was banned for DEFENDING me. In the end we said ????
it and created our own sub. Amazing, but within a week we were moving 1/10
the traffic of the old sub but we didn't have to deal with the idiotic "How do
I run init.exe?" questions or deal with "How do I make mode 013912039.1230123
XRB-2thousand, d00d?" crap. Instead of sysops sitting around acting cool
drinking sodas around a pickle barrel, we decided to quite the bull pucking
and get down the business.

Since the topic of this sub is chatter and chatter is not allowed on it (or at
least not an all inclusive chatter), I suggest simply forming a new sub.
Considering that this was suggested had Local\General-Chatter decided to
actually create a policy which did not allow for all topics, it might as well
be done here. It's a shame that instead of actually hosting the sub I
suggested that someone else do it. This is the last time I think about the
administration instead of the freedoms of users.

Hosts should wear kickme signs.

[gimme an EOF!]
Ezra Kilogram #1 @5300
Sun Dec 16 11:28:46 1990
36/46: >I will not put up with a sewer in my home...
Name: The Q #27 @5313
Date: Sat Dec 15 03:56:19 1990

RE: Otto.......
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

>I don't permit it in my local Sub, and see no reason to put up with it in my
>netted sub.

It should be fairly apparent (even to you) that viewing discussions on a CRT
is quite a bit different from having the participants sitting in your
livingroom. We don't spill beer on your sofa, we don't yak in your sink, we
don't eat your food. Can you honestly imagine hosting a party with a number
of guests comparable to the network population? Now imagine trying to control
the conversational tone of all of these people, many of which you would NEVER
invite to your home in the first place?

If you wish to exercise the same type of control in a sub that you exercise
with houseguests, you're uninformed. If you expect to be able to accomplish
this with WWIV users: you're a fool.

====================================

37/46: The Host of Oregon General Chatter
Name: Captain Quirk #1 @5312
Date: Fri Dec 14 21:52:37 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: THOUGHT: IT ONLY HURTS THE FIRST TIME

Is ME..... Captain Quirk 1@5312. This whole conversation started when I posted
some rules about language use on this sub.

I am tired of seeing this junk.... Don't you people have anything interesting
to talk about besides listing all the words you can think of for Deficatating?
A more Anal Retentive group I have never seen!

Seems that the Blazers blew an easy one against Sacramento the other night...
Broke their winning streak at 18 games. Lets talk about them for awhile.

====================================

39/46: Host:
Name: Ford Prefect #1 @5311
Date: Fri Dec 14 01:23:08 1990
From:*Milliway's (Oregon)

Since there seems to be quite a bit of confusion (S.O.P. around here) as to
the rules/guidelines for this sub, would you PLEASE take the time to post them
so we all know what's going on? Thanks.

====================================

40/46: Yikes ! Otto <---- Better watch out pal
Name: Boss2 #34 @5304
Date: Fri Dec 14 05:33:43 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

RE: Otto.......

Otto:

I guess you've have been told to stop using those taboo words. For shame, we
shouldn't discuss the real world while "sitting around the pickel barrel"

This reminds me of a bunch of virgins.

====================================

41/46: Ok folks.... THE RULES
Name: Captain Quirk #1 @5312
Date: Sat Dec 15 16:17:01 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: Host:


1. No Profanity.

Yes, some of you think me a wimp for this.... Too bad. I have what I
consider valid reasons for this, and it's no longer up for dissussion.

That is the whole list of rules....

====================================

42/46: The real world....
Name: Captain Quirk #1 @5312
Date: Sat Dec 15 16:23:55 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: Yikes ! Otto <---- Better watch out pal

This is REALLY becoming a bore...... What is the problem???? and what is so bad
about Virgins?? If we had a few more of that type of person and a few less
sluts the world might become a little better to live in. I go to work and all I hear is this junk- wanguage become that you can't talk without
visiting the sewer??

====================================

44/46: Oh?
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sun Dec 16 11:07:52 1990

RE: The Host of Oregon General Chatter
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

Capt. Jerk of the USS Jerkoff:
>A more Anal Retentive group I have never sneen!

No, what you ran into is Otto. Otto stuidies linguistics. Grouch is a good
friend of Otto, and a lot of what he's learned has rubbed off on me. You
ended up with two people that you CANNOT deal with. No one else really can,
either.

I've got a throbbing macro.

====================================

45/46: Duh rules
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sun Dec 16 11:12:23 1990

RE: Ok folks.... THE RULES
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

>1. No Profanity.

Ok, is this allowed?

I was walking through the park one day when I ran into a puddle formed of
urine, fecal matter, and strewn of condoms and other birth control devices--
even the leftovers of the Save-The-Babies-Home-Abortion-Kit. Several puddles
of vomit were to be crossed as well, in a Homeric sized Epic Adventure through
hell. A hell of idiots.

Yes, Mayor Koch with his anus-like mouth, his penis-shaped nose, his
vaginal-juice-like-dripping eyes, and his Captain-Quirk-like mentality was
definately one fornicator of cities.

---

No profanity. No content. But by far the most `profane' think ever posted on
this sub to date, other than your rules.

Fornicate your rules!

I purge my bowles on your rules!

I stingingly urinate on your rules!

Your rules are the excretions from a pustule which has popped on the anus of
society.

(C)opywrong 1990. Have a bonghit.

====================================

46/46: Oh, look at this dichotomy!
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sun Dec 16 11:22:38 1990

RE: The real world....
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

Captain Quirk:
>..what is so bad about Virgins?? If we had a few more of that type of
>person and a few less sluts the world might be a little better to live in.
>I go to work and all I hear is this junk- what has language become that
>you can't talk without visiting the sewer??

Ok, I've had enough of this feces from the host of this sub. If the host were
not contradicting himself every time he squatted on his toilet it would be
fine, but the above quote will be handled in two parts: 1) virgins, 2)
language.

1. Slut is not an antonym to virgin. Virgin simply means someone that has
never had sex, at least according to _current_ definitions. Back a couple
dozen decades ago, a virgin had a little bit more of a mystical/religious
meaning. No longer.

Sluts are people who have sex all they can. This is definately not the
antonym of virgin, since the antonym of virgin would be someone who has had
sex. Slut has quite a bit more meaning, mainly in that it states that the
person has had sex numerous times. Slut is also marked as a female trait,
whereas virgin is marked for neither.

The number of sluts and virgins in this world really doesn't matter. What
does matter is the amount of responsibility sexually active and inactive
people have when touching other people. The spreading of diseases is the
problem-- pregnancy is no where near is bad. If you want to attack `sluts' on
the grounds that they cause the over population, you better attack our
government instead. After all, we have helped nations which have high levels
of poverty stay impoverished. We have helped cause wars which lead to ever
more population problems. THE USA IS A POPULATION PROBLEM.

2. Just a few days ago you said no more discussions of historical
linguistics-- and now you ask a fornicating question about it? What type of
cheap-posterior person are you? Would you, by any chance, be a member of the
government, or are you simply acting like an idiot by choice?

Language is something that the people as a _whole_ effect. If a word takes on
a certain connotation it has to do with what people themselves THINK of the
word. I cannot give too many examples-- if any --of this on this sub because
you've asked that there be no profanity (what a fornicator-head!).

The connotations of words reflect the feelings of society as a whole. What's
wrong with being a spinster? It's quite alright to be a bachelor. What's
wrong with being a mistress? It's quite alright to be a mister. The list
goes on and on of sexual stigma, sexist stigma, and other things.

Of course, I can in no way expect Captain Quack to understand any of this. He
is after all, just another person with his head stuck half-way up his
intestinal tract.

====================================

47/47: Unconstitutional sub!
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Sun Dec 16 11:30:14 1990

This sub is unconstitutional in that it restricts the freedom of expression of
the people of the United States of America from using whatever word choice or
topic they choose to express themselves through.

I suggest that other people start realizing what the sub host of this sub is.
His political beliefs and economic beliefs to not matter-- what does matter is
that this guy is PERSONALLY working to destroy the 1st Amendment.

Anyone ever heard of the PMRC?

Welcome to Hitler\General-Chatter, folks. You can be sure that happy hour is
now enforced by law.

Captain Quirk Uber Alles!

====================================
This is part four of an ongoing argument regarding the stupidits,
moderators, and other crypto-fascists.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
48/75: Cpt. Quirk's tinfoil fist
Name: Vagrant #1 @5313
Date: Sun Dec 16 15:36:20 1990

RE: Unconstitutional sub!
BY: Grouch #10 @5313

On <16 Dec 1990> Grouch the coitushead (#10 @5313) didn't say:
| This sub is unconstitutional in that it restricts the freedom of
| expression of the people of the United States of America from using
| whatever word choice or topic they choose to express themselves
| through.

Unconstitutional? Hardly. The constitution prohibits *Congress* from
making laws restricting the freedom of expression. It does not prohibit
the excercise of divine priviledge. Besides, it has been interpreted as
meaning "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech so
long as said speech does not contradict official policy...." The host
obviously supports this interpretation fully, so shut up. It is his duty
to protect the poor children from knowledge of the Evil One's linguistic
manipulations.

| I suggest that other people start realizing what the sub host of this
| sub is. His political beliefs and economic beliefs to [sic] not
| matter-- what does matter is that this guy is PERSONALLY working to
| destroy the 1st Amendment.

What the HOLE is that? Haven't you learned anything?

Wayne, during times of soberity, holds these truths to be self-evident:
that all hosts shall retain the inalienable right to restrict the com-
munication of others, that all demands for justification are to be an-
swered with the divine intervention of any available doublethinking
crypto-fascist, and that power shall evermore be its own excuse.

If you don't love it, leave it. Go to an L-5 colony where they'll
appreciate you and your ilk. Set up your own Boregon\General-Chatter.
You'll find soon enough that people don't appreciate those who elim-
inate their ignorant blissfulness.

| Welcome to Hitler\General-Chatter, folks. You can be sure that happy
| hour is [^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^] now enforced by law.

You bet it is, bub. And you can bet that the law will be quite pleased
to lock your LIBERAL buttocks behind bars for as long as they can fend
off the lawyers. "Hitler\General-Chatter" is (C)opyleft 1990 by Vagrant
@5313. The phrase was originally assigned to subtype #15312 on 14 Dec-
ember 1990. There are enough anti-communication laws in our great
country to keep you occupied (and hence out of our teeny little minds)
for at least a month while you pathetically plead innocent to plagair-
ism charges.

Kapitanin Eigenart: arrest this grouch. You've got your excuse:
plagairized libel. Do the Amerikan thing the Amerikan way.

---

Otto: You're an anti-Amerikan, socialist, antitheist, military-industrialist,
communist, Nazi, running-dog lackey of the Rockefeller-Rothschild conspiracy.
Stick your rational thought and neophilia up the arse, piglet.

| Captain Quirk Uber Alles!

Anbeten Sie unsere Fuhrerin! Heil die Laufenschweinhundin! Heil die heilige
Kapitanin!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
49/75: Jeezly CROW!!!!
Name: Sphincter Boy #13 @5312
Date: Sun Dec 16 12:36:25 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

Are you guys illiterate? Apparantly, you decide to ignore the host... he has
ASKED that this inane discussion of words and their usages not be discussed
here. It has growb very tiresome to me, and I'm sure to many others
participating (Including The Cap'n) ... so please listen to what the host has
to say. After all, he is the host...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
50/75: Alright..
Name: David Burns #15 @5312
Date: Sun Dec 16 15:49:52 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

RE: THOUGHT: IT ONLY HURTS THE FIRST TIME

Things that are 'proper,' or 'polite' are, by nature, based on a person's
opinion. If it bothers you, you may preface any statement using these words
with, "In my humble opinion," including the first sentence of this message.

I assume the sysop of the board you are using enforces the rules of the
various subs that he carries.

People--all people, <insert IMHO here> have the power to govern their own
actions. Some choose not to. That is within their power, but they may have
to face the consequences for doing so.

As to the first amendment: That garrentees that the GOVERNMENT (ie, congress)
will do nothing to stop you from spreading your ideas. You can stand in the
street and tell everybody you meet to join the Church of BOB, if you so
choose. BUT, without my permission, you may not post a sign on my lawn
telling people to do same. Nor can you use your sysop's computer and the
host's computer to spread fowl language, if they have said that it is not
allowed.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
52/75: Really?
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:15:59 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

RE: Clean vs. Dirty: the reason.

>BUT there are times and places where it is socialy important to watch one's
>tongue..

Yes. Remember to watch your tongue and keep rigid tongue protocol when
licking the end-of-the-large-intestine of the moderator.

I already stated that things are appropriate for different areas of formality.
I'm sorry that I used words which were not in your dictionary, or are you too
lazy to look things up?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
53/75: Is our host THAT dumb?
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:24:07 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

RE: Otto.......

Dear Mr. Host,

I am afraid to inform you of this, but linguistics and chatter are not
mutually exclusive topics. If you think that the discussions pertaining to
linguistics which were being used to defend opinions on language are in any
way inappropriate for this sub, then I would suggest sticking your head in a
blender and going full blast with it. Please do not feed the resulting
product to the fish. I would hate to think that like tapeworms eating their
brothers (RNA soup, a la John Brunner) they might end up being idiots and
totally ignorant of semantic knowledge, whereas the worms learned to move
chess pieces; no sh?t-- it's in a SIGART issue from 88 or 89.

If you in any way think that we are at all impressed by your behavior think
again.

If you think that this sub is stationed at you're house, I would suggest
reading netref.doc, which should have been included with the network package.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but all your machine does is keep a listing
of who you say is in the sub and distribute CC's of the messages to them. You
are not God, although you might think you are. All BBSes which carry this sub
carry this sub "in ther home" and not just yours.

Perhaps you should give up your analogy and face what's really going on.
Before you join any network you should at least try to make yourself familliar
with the technical aspects of the network.

You might as well kill this message. I'm sure that it's hurt your ego too
much to allow out on the network.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
54/75: Virgin ears, virgin minds, virgin eyes..F?CK VIRGINS!
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:25:10 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

RE: Yikes ! Otto <---- Better watch out pal

> RE: Otto.......
>
> Otto:
>
> I guess you've have been told to stop using those taboo words. For
> shame, we shouldn't discuss the real world while "sitting around the
> pickel barrel"
>
> This reminds me of a bunch of virgins.

Boss2: I dunno about you, but don't you think that the above title is more
suggestive and `dirty' than simply putting the 'u' in there? These people are
f?cked in the head.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
55/75: Again, Mr. Moderator: ARE YOUR THAT DUMB?
Name: Otto #30 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 01:29:23 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

Dear Mr. Moderator's Brain:

Hopefully this has not made it into /dev/null land.

I would like to ask you yet another question. Yes-- this one will be just as
taxing as the previous one, so you better go get daddy and mummy to help you
with this one.

If this sub is for the people, which I suppose is what you mean when you say
it is "OUR" sub, exactly which ones do you mean?

Since I am not supposed to post on here, or at least I'm not allowed to post
on the topic of profanity and the insecurities of our culture, I don't see how
this could possible be "OUR" sub without me being included. Since I was the
target of your message, I would be included in "OUR".

Please pay more attention in the future. Mummy and Daddy may be loaning you
this machine for the weekend to run a BBS on, however I don't think they have
told you anything about network culture, especially not WWIVnet.

If anything else confuses you, I'm sure that Ezra Kilogram would be more than
happy to answer any questions for you.

-- Otto[0] : the original member

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
56/75: Otto <-- It's a never ending battle
Name: Boss2 #34 @5304
Date: Sat Dec 15 05:02:57 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

RE: Virgin ears, virgin minds, virgin eyes..F?CK VIRGINS!

Some people have a hard time accepting reality. The fact is, and everyone
knows (even the nuns at St. Mary's) that f?ucking is fun and enjoyable. Why
they object when you use the term in other conotations is beyond me.

I always thought that these people who object are unable to perform the act
and thus are jealous when you mention the word.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
63/75: Captain Quirk, Give it Up
Name: Destructor #97 @5304
Date: Sun Dec 16 11:11:03 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

Unless you are ignoring the fact, Grouch, Otto, Ezra and several other users
are one and the same. We in PDX have learned that if he cares to he will
post message after message from all his usernames to push his point. I have
found that the best course of action is to simply ignore what he says if he is
posting an opinion that you don't agree with. (that is, do this if you wan't
him to shut up) Personally, I agree with him on the swear word point, but I
would also point out that he usually does not use swear words in his posts,
unless he knows the opposing user hates them. You made a mistake by posting
the fact that you dislike 'em. Simply stop posting your opinions on
swearwords and he will give it up after a few weeks. Just becaus you rfuse to
post on an issue does not mean that you agree, or have no opinions. Fire
feeds fire.
IMHO I measure a person in a position of authority by the leadership qualities
they display. They are either an autocratic leader, a democratic leader, or
they involve the entire group in the solution to a problem. You so far have
displayed a large amount of autocratic leadership and this is bad. I would
suggest in the future, that if you want compliance, that you involve the
entire net in a solution to your problems. Otherwise, the net will simply
pass you by. I would also suggest that you take a 100 level communications
class, and a leadership class.
I hope you don't regard this as some sort of flame. I just see someone who is
lacking the proper training and tools for his job.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
64/75: Ok
Name: Eskimo From Hell #1 @5304
Date: Sun Dec 16 12:24:40 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

RE: Ok folks.... THE RULES

define profanity......

-Eskimo

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
65/75: well
Name: Eskimo From Hell #1 @5304
Date: Sun Dec 16 12:26:30 1990
From: San Tropez (Oregon)

RE: The real world....

If the whole world got fuc (oops) ingaged in the pleasures of the flesh, it
would be a much nicer place to live in, but there would be a noticable lack of
these virgin things.

-Eskimo

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
66/75: I never would have belived.........
Name: Captain Quirk #1 @5312
Date: Sun Dec 16 17:28:44 1990
From: The Capital Connection (Oregon)

That ONE simple request would have caused so muck trouble..............

I have been a WWIV user for over a year in Medford and when I moved to Salem I
decided to bring it with me as I enjoyed very much there. So I'm not exactly
NEW around WWIV.

The original reason that I decided on a "clean" sub was personal.... I am a
Religious person and have a personal problem with swear words.... I lose
control and use them from time to time. I also have to deal with it at work.
I just wanted a place to go at the end of a hard day and have pleasant
conversation and stimulating arguments. Arguments I certainly got!!

I had hoped that I could start an all Oregon sub AND not have to deal with my
personal battle.... oviously not possible DESPITE what the WWIVnet Guide
says. You see... I did read it, and then made the mistake of thinking that
everyone would abide by it. I even was naive enough to think I would get some
support from others on the sub.... No luck.... Oh, one guy pointed out that
three of the people attacking me were in fact one person, and that I could
probably expect this to die down after I stopped posting. The only real
support for my policy came from my users on my board. That just simply not
enough support when the three Portland boards connected insist on fighting
me.

Fine. I raise the white flag. I surrender. I hope you choke.

Otto, post your fucking messages.... Shit, I can deal with it here, after all
I have to deal the crap I get at work.

I want this Sub to continue....

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
72/75: To: D---- B---- (part II)
Name: Vagrant #1 @5313
Date: Tue Dec 18 19:02:18 1990

RE: Alright..
BY: David Burns #15 @5312

> I assume the sysop of the board you are using enforces the rules of
> the various subs that he carries.

I am the sysop, unf?ckedhead. I also try to carry non-totalitarian subs.

> Nor can you use your sysop's computer and the host's computer to spread
> fowl language, if they have said that it is not allowed.

ROBIN CARDINAL PEACOCK OSTRICH

Wrong. I can and I have. Whether or not they've attempted to tell me what to
do, I can still do it. Permission does not dictate the reality of a
situation. Learn to trascend such artificial barriers to your intellectual
development.

Host: since you want to assume a dichotomy, why not do it democraptically?
After all, you and all_sheep@5312 can't be the only ones who fear satanic
semantics. Since you're not in the habit of justifying irrationalities, you'd
better make sure that the rest of this sub's readers don't have any repressed
reactions to words like "guacamole," "Belgium," or "sysop."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
73/75: Loose and diahrretic sphincter child:
Name: Vagrant #1 @5313
Date: Tue Dec 18 19:04:10 1990

RE: Jeezly CROW!!!!
BY: Sphincter Boy #13 @5312

Can you say "[un]civil disobedience?" I knew you couldn't. Are you
attempting to tell us to stop speaking up for our beliefs? I'd be willing to
wager that you've told people you agree with not to back down multiple times.
Why shouldn't the same policy apply with people who are more open-minded than
Herr Quark and his ilk?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
74/75: Cool.
Name: Grouch #10 @5313
Date: Tue Dec 18 23:59:11 1990

RE: I never would have belived.........
BY: Captain Quirk #1 @5312

Quirk:
>Otto, post your fucking messages.... SHit, I can deal with it here....

Well, if the problem with swear words is a religious issue, maybe you should
switch religions to something that is more equiped to deal with the current
`real' world?

Your policy would not have generated this much questioning had you not made
the mistake of being so vague. If you didn't want to have to deal with any
fighting, you should not have tried to impose your will on others.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[end, part 4]





 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
Neutral English Accent
ah le francais...
Most amount of languages someone can learn
what language do you like to hear?
On a certain annoyance of speaking English..
GPP is bad grammar
Les Verbes Rares Francais! Aidez-moi!
Words that piss you Off
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS