Re: what's appropriate to post

[nessus@twitch.mit.edu (Douglas Alan)]

In article <1993Dec22.150311.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> engjs@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (James Smith) writes:

   |>oug> I address the following to any potential poster who has
   |>oug> anything truly nasty to say about about another individual,
   |>oug> be that individual Chris, Vickie, Jorn, Allan Balliett, or
   |>oug> me: No one cares whether or not what you have to say is
   |>oug> true.  No one wants to hear it.  Take it somewhere else.
   |>oug> This is not what this group was created for.

   Jim> These cat fights have been around in gaffa for as long as I
   Jim> have. I still haven't seen anything to equal the "douse the
   Jim> bitch in petrol and let her burn" days. Me, I'd prefer to see
   Jim> them get it out of their systems. If I don't want to read it,
   Jim> I won't. Which doesn't mean to say I don't.

I've certainly been a partner in many heated discussions over the
years here, but I think there is a big difference between a heated
discussion about something related to music or art and an extended
public fight over personal issues.  The "stuff a rag in the bitch's
mouth and set her on fire" statement (by the inimitable Tim Wicinski)
was actually part of an extremely heated discussion on musical taste
where Tim expressed in his matchless style (or perhaps he had matches
this time) his profound disagreement with someone else's musical
taste.  So, by my guidelines (which *do* make a distinction between
free speech and libel) even statements such as this were allowable.
Of course, such statements are easy to misinterpret and this statement
resulted in partial loss of Tim's Internet access and
self-expatriation of half of the members of Love-Hounds.  Public
fights over personality conflicts and personal issues will also
discourage intelligent conversation on art and music, which is what
this discussion group is for.  Perhaps history should not be repeated.

|>oug
   <nessus@mit.edu>