On Tue, 28 May 2002, John D. Giorgis wrote: > Surely you don't consider his use of profanity and obscene sexual > references to be rare?
It has become less rare, I'll grant. > And if you don't, why did you begin this message with an apology for use of > profanity, but don't consider Mark's use of profanity worthy of any kind of > censure? (I have not, as yet, seen you advocate even so much as a warning > to Mark, let alone a temporary ban - though I'll admit that I might have > missed it (and if so, please go easy on me :)) My profanity was used in anger, of which I'm not proud. Mark's for the most part has struck me as being used for neither anger nor spite, but for some kind of bizarre aesthetic effect. To my mind that makes a huge difference. And as I've said, I'm just having a hard time being disturbed by it, though I can see how others would. As for advocating warnings and bans, I don't think such things make any sense unless you can lay down a set of concrete criteria that all or most are willing to agree upon. "Abide by the guidelines" IMO is insufficient because the guidelines are very vague. For instance, I'd be pretty happy if Wilbur could reduce the "f*ck" count and the post count -- maybe by combining posts into longer posts -- to make his behavior less spam-like. And...I find myself bemused by Mark, somehow. My curiosity still outweighs my annoyance. Makes me a bad list-cop, I'm sure. Marvin Long Austin, Texas "Never flay a live Episiarch." -- Galactic Proverbs 7563:34(j)
