From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:33:32 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Sep3.025332.16509@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.155459.1635@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.000512.29124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>>Bullshit.
>>>
>>>That's the kind of language I'm referring to. Carl, you've let Dan corrupt
>>>you. You're degenerating. Take those tablets quick.
>>
>>If you don't want to see me using that language, then stop spouting your
>>bullshit.  Actually, it wasn't Dan who corrupted me this way, it was a fellow
>>by the name of Richard P. Feynman.

>[....]

>>.... he didn't give a
>>damn about status, and he was quite willing to use strong language when a moron
>>refused to either listen to him or quit pestering him.
>>

>Hmmmm, justifying your actions because "someone else does it." That's 
>fallacious argument #1193, your arguments are degenerating with your language.

	No, he was responding to your arguement that 'these people DON'T do
it, that's why you never see them here on sci.skeptic.'  Maybe we should be
a little more conservative with deletions?

>Take some more of those tablets.

>>Have you ever heard James Randi speak?  I didn't think so.  Randi wouldn't be
>>the least bit uncomfortable participating in sci.skeptic.  Really, Derek, one
>>of these days you ought to try to get into the habit of knowing something 
>>about what you're talking about before you say something.
>>

>Would Randi be quite happy using language like s**t in Court during the
>Geller trials?

	Maybe.  The point was that your 'people of high calibre' arguement
was nonsense; they are just as likely to use strong language when the
situation calls for it as anyone else.  So you are sidestepping this point
by implying that the net is a professional setting where these people
wouldn't dare to use such language.

>Not likely. So then why should sci.skeptic be any less professional than a
>court? 

	Why are you assuming sci.skeptic must be as professional as a court?
The purpose of this newsgroup is to be an OPEN FORUM for discusion and
communication of ideas; by controlling the language you are controlling
the expression of ideas.
	By the way, what is with your total preoccupation with language?
You seem to feel that certain things should never be expressed, or that there
are only certain 'allowable' forms of expression.  
	If you want to have a higher standard, then have a RFD(*) on a news-
group like sci.skeptic.moderated where half to three quarters of the utter 
nonsense that initiates the NEED for foul language would never get posted in 
the first place.

>But if that's they way a majority of netters like it then I can say
>no more.

	Get rid of the bullshit to start with, and then you will get rid of
people feeling the need for calling things bullshit.

>>>I must be some kind of masochist, myself, to still keep hanging around.
>>
>>No, you're simply an idiot.

>I agree I must be.... by association.

	Like the 'quantum superbeing' thread you were associated with?

*Request for Discussion:  a formal call to discuss the formation of a new 
                          newsgroup.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15068 talk.origins:10142