Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:20:00 -0400
From:         Meredith_Warshaw@FRANKSTON.COM
Subject:      offensive comments
X-To:         stat-l@frankston.com

Last week I sent a note to the list complaining about anti-social "tags" at
the end of
people's messages.  There seems to have been some confusion because I forgot
to
mention that the note had been sent to me personally, not to the list at
large.  Also, I
originally did not post the message I had received, since I don't like
spreading that
sort of stuff.  However, since some of the people who responded seemed to
think that I
was probably overinterpreting what I read, I am now including the message:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ "There is something about being intelligent and Jewish                     +
+  that is an almost-insurmountable obstacle to niceness"
+
+                            - Bill the Carpet
Trader                                       +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some of the reactions I received [with annotations] include:
********************************************************************
     I have received only one rude remark from a STAT-L lister, in private
mail to me
rather than the list.  I must have deleted without reading any that went to
the list -- or
were these sent directly to you?  If the latter you might want to consider
forwarding them
to the list so that their rude behavior is a matter of public scrutiny, a
response that I
considered.  My rude email came from Duke U., which surprised me a little.

      Karl L. Wuensch, Dept. of Psychology, East Carolina Univ.
      Greenville, NC  27858-4353, PSWUENSC AT ECUVM1 (BITNET)
[I decided to allow the sender to remain private - my purpose is not to
embarass, but to
lessen the amount of anti-social behavior on the list]
********************************************************************
      I appreciate the comments from one list member about offensive
statments in some
messages.  While the authors may think they are being clever and exercising
their
freedom of speech, I would hope they can accomplish both without needlessly
offending
those of us on the list who are sensitive to these things.  I request that
all members
express their political, racial, religious, and sexual views elsewhere.
     A response to a statistical question from somebody I never met can
influence me a lot.
Political notes that express contempt for any groups disappoint me, but are
not likely to
influence me.

Thanks,
Alan C. Acock
Oregon State University
acock@ucs.orst.edu
********************************************************************
I agree completely with your expressed concern.  All should be able to
participate
without denigration or insult.

Dan
Manger Inf. Tech.
Bryant College
dboone@research1.bryant.edu
********************************************************************
Dear statlers:
I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE ANYONE ON THE LIST *INTENTIONALLY* MAKING
OFFENSIVE COMMENTS. HOWEVER, SOMETIMES THESE THINGS CAN
OCCUR BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SENSITIVE TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR
*CUTE MESSAGES*.  I APPLAUD THE RECENT COMMENTS TO THE LIST
CALLING OUR ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE OFFENSIVE MESSAGES BEING
SENT.  WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE OFFENSIVE MESSAGES. ANY
SUGGESTIONS?

  K   K
    *  *
 K   E * K        PRODUCED AND DIRECTED BY STEPHEN SALBOD
   K   K            ON LOCATION AT PACE UNIVERSITY, NY
*

"A KLINGON DREAM"
********************************************************************
     It's always been my view that people have a right to display their
viewpoints, ignorant
as they may be.  Now, clearly this is a list about statistics, so it would
make some sense
to limit such displays to matters of statistics.  I would definitely object
if someone posted
a 2-page essay on why they dislike (or like) Jewish people to the list.  But,
I don't think a
couple line signature disrupts the statistical focus of the list in any
significant way.
Would you choose to eliminate all signature commentary, or only that which
disturbs
you?  It seems to me that personalized signatures offer us a modest glimpse
into the
personalities of those we correspond with.  The fact that what we see is
sometimes ugly,
should not be reason to hide it.   I think the appropriate response to an
offensive signature
is to reply directly to the sender and let them know your feelings.  At the
very least, you
know that person is not someone to spend time helping, and you'll know a
little more
about them if you ever happen to meet.

Tim Dorcey                        BITNET:   TCD@CORNELLC
Statistical Software Consultant   Internet:
TCD@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Cornell Information Technologies  Phone:    (607) 255-5715
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY  14853
[I am not advocating censorship, or dropping offenders from the list - I just
want people
to think before they write gratuitously nasty messages!  I certainly would
not want to
eliminate all signature commentary; some of it is rather amusing and to the
point.  And,
yes, I did respond directly to the offending party.  However, I also feel
that it is
important to air this issue in public.]
********************************************************************
Jeff Borchers:
          ...offensive messages are like bumper stickers: You can ignore them
'til they go
away, you can harp about them thereby further empowering their message (and
clogging
the airwaves), or you can rear-end the sonnovabitch!
********************************************************************
I don't find the "attached" quote too defensible, myself.  (One wonders why
someone
would use that as part of that person's electronic "signature".)

Anyways, thanks again for the insights.

Deanna
----------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY FROM: Wild, Deanna K.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU