Conference back40::soapbox

    Is it a policy that Jerry Beeler gets to be a mod long after he's left
    the company? 8^)

    re: .1
    I used PAN to copy the notes from the old 'Box and create a new one.

    Did ya notice that you could "see" all the new notes, without mucking
    with your SOAPBOX notebook entry?

    My hat's off to Andy Leslie for a great tool...
    \john

Ya done good, \john.

    Should you really be talking about Andy leslie's tool?

    Glenn's got a point.  12.666-.667 were hacked and it isn't the first
    time (unless the mods are fooling around; if so, 'fess up.)
    
    DougO

     So what do you want us to do about it? Close the conference? It is
    well known that NOTES is not secure, and anybody can hack it if they
    know enough. Are you saying there's a smoking gun that points to the
    hacker?

How do we know they were hacked? Did anyone besides Glen see them in the
other order? I saw them in the current order as early as 10 last evening.
I made the assumption that Glen in an effort to pull our leg had a .COM
procedure that posted .666, extracted it and replied as .667, deleted .666,
accessed .667 and reset the number, and then replied to it reposting .666.
That's doable within the same minute.

    The smoking gun was a bit more obvious last time Mark, and if you took
    any action at the time it seems to have been ineffective.  Wanna
    pretend you don't have any idea who is responsible? And yes, Jack, 
    I saw the notes in the proper order.  They've been hacked.
    
    DougO

Well, then if you can substantiate that it was hackery, Doug, we all know
who the responsible party is. He ain't much of a fun guy, anyway. Mebbe
we should just start ignoring him en masse and he'll go away.

	one wonders what action dougo would have the mods take.  send a
	"j'accuse!" message to the suspected party? 

    what petty nonsense.
    
    consider Notes' hackability to be an asset to you, the writer of notes
    in this or any conference. we all know, some of us more than others,
    that notes can be easily hacked. tis a very trusting application. so if
    you write something stupid, and get called for it, you can always claim
    someone hacked it and you in fact did not say that. can't be proved
    either way.

    one is certain that moderator powers could be used to good effect, Di,
    should the mods decide to use them.  A hacker mucks with somebody's
    notes, mods could return the attention in spades.  Otherwise you have a
    bombthrower loose, thumbing his nose at you with impunity.
    
    DougO

Well, I still say them that writes HACKER programs for NOTES needn't get
any learnin' from Jocelyn Elders.

	>>A hacker mucks with somebody's
        >>notes, mods could return the attention in spades.

	"return the attention in spades"?  conveniently vague.  decide
	who we think it was and screw around with that person's notes?
	oh yah, right.

    Oh goody! Another box trial! I've got the frufru all picked out and a
    new bottle of linseed oil!

    Glenn

Frou-frou.

    At least Mark had the character not to pretend he didn't know where the
    smoking gun points, Di.
    
    DougO

    I'd use civilian law DougO... if you know exert your participant rights
    and arrest the perp!

I also saw them in the right order my next-unseen mapped to .668(or .669)
this am then after a few notes it mapped to .666/.667 pair so something
did change it.
Amos

	oh, so now i lack character, dougo?  i didn't _pretend_ anything.
	you were talking in generalities about what to do about hackers
	and so was i.

    	The entries could be swapped without the use of a hack program, 
    	and they would retain their original time stamps.  It could be
    	done any time after the original posting.  
    
    	All it takes is mod privs or ownership.

    sorry Di.  This isn't that important, and I apologize for the
    inference.  If in the general case you don't know who the hacker
    is then obviously you can't target their notes for three-times-returned
    justice.  In the specific case where you *do* have an indication, such
    as this one (12.666-7), from past behaviors, then you certainly could
    issue a little frontier justice.
    
    DougO

    	Oh great.  Drag your wet dreams of "payback" into the box.
    	And get the mods to do your dirty work, no less...

>           <<< Note 6.21 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>
>
>        The entries could be swapped without the use of a hack program,
>        and they would retain their original time stamps.  It could be
>        done any time after the original posting.
>
>        All it takes is mod privs or ownership.

Takes less than that.
  

Phil

    re -1
    
    the legendary phil is oh so right here.

    ...furthermore....
    
        >>notes, mods could return the attention in spades.
    
    speak english dougo. what the hell is this supposed to mean? sheesh.

    a) It does NOT take "mod privs or ownership".  It can be done from
        the comfort of most any machine on the net.

    b) If somebody wants to make the assertion that *I* (john harney) know,
        or even suspect, who's behind the switching, please do so EXPLICITLY.
        This "the mods" stuff is way too vague.  We'll then follow up with
        personnel, and get it settled.

    c) If you believe that "the mods" can somehow prevent or track this
        action, please start by proving that you understand the nature
        of the "attack", then provide one mechanism for said tracking.

    I thank you.  More or less.
    \john

    
    Me thinks it's a little paranoid for anyone to think "the mods" are out
    to get them.  It was a prank, funny or not, it ain't that big of a
    deal, is it?  Cripse, people make the biggest deals out of the littlest
    things, get over it as was mentioned earlier in the file.
    
    
    Mike

    >c) If you believe that "the mods" can somehow prevent or track this
    >    action, please start by proving that you understand the nature
    >    of the "attack", then provide one mechanism for said tracking.
    
    i say forget it. someone with reasonable network and system
    intelligence could hack the damn thing and you couldn't find them in a
    million years. waste of time. there are backdoors into every piece of
    slightly advanced technology. i put a few into code i wrote years ago.
    they are prolly still there. BFD.
    
    

| <<< Note 6.7 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>



| How do we know they were hacked? Did anyone besides Glen see them in the
| other order? I saw them in the current order as early as 10 last evening.
| I made the assumption that Glen in an effort to pull our leg had a .COM
| procedure that posted .666, extracted it and replied as .667, deleted .666,
| accessed .667 and reset the number, and then replied to it reposting .666.
| That's doable within the same minute.

	If you come up with a .com file, let me know. You know I didn't do it
because I said I didn't do it.


Glen

	Me thinks covert action has taken place..... :-)

    it's a notes daemon.  
    
    Brian

> You know I didn't do it because I said I didn't do it.

I don't recall having seen that you'd said that Glen, but I don't doubt you
if you say that's the case.

    Not only that, he believes you.

	Thanks for clarifying that Glen. I really depreciate it. :-)

    re 4.8-
    
    but harn, she was right.  he really was so full of it that his eyes
    were brown.
    
    DougO

    COULD IT HAVE BEEN...SATAN ?
    

    
    RE: .36
    
    And what color are your eyes???
    

    .14, .20:
    
    Wrong reaction, Di -- you're supposed to get all up-tight and then go
    forth and make this conference one of men, not laws.
    
    Dick

    We gots us a genyoowine Sinister Force loose in da 'Box!  If any tapes
    were erased in the process of its activity, I'se all over that like
    Haag on Sheep.
    

    why some cranky old goderator is harassing 'Box members on notes they
    enter...smacks of censorship!

re: .41

If you have a complaint, post specifics, mail the moderators, or
shut the hell up.  Vague handwaving about a "cranky goderator" in
the conference policy topic is a stupid waste of time.

See?  Now you've made ME cranky.

\john

    .42
    /john
    
    you were born cranky

re .43

  .42 is by \john

/john

    sorry /john...it was for \john...somedays it doesn't pay to get up in
    the morning!

    
    No now, leave \john alone.  He's a poppet.

    who's he a puppet of, ms. Deb...oh, you said poppet...well that
    explains it then!

 > somedays it doesn't pay to get up in the morning!

 Ron, maybe if you ran over to the White House and 
 engaged in the latest national pastime, it would help?

    In all seriousness, the last thing our country needs is another
    assassinated President turned martyr turned superhero by his
    sympathisizers.

    sympathisizer-  noun. A person that shows a synthetic sympathy towards
    		    another.     

	Absolutely agree.

	The parade of folks venting frustration at the *building*
	fascinates me, though.

Note 6.51 by SUBPAC::JJENSEN 
    
	>The parade of folks venting frustration at the *building*
	>fascinates me, though.
    
    its sickening to watch the press distort the hell out of this. i've
    seen reports that gun play is the norm at night in DC and that it is
    now beginning to show up on pennsylvania ave. there is a pretty heavy
    emphasis on guns being the problem. they convienently fail to mention
    that handguns are BANNED in DC. you can't legally buy one. yet you have
    all those thugs and kids carrying them around shooting each other.
    maybe banning thugs and kids is the answer.

    I say give them more guns. Pour free guns into the situation, lots of
    fully automatic ones, give out bullet stamps, a free clip with every
    brick of cheese.

    Glenn

    >>I say give them more guns. 
    we don't have to. they'll get them anyway.

    yeah, the last time I started 'wondering' something it ratholed the
    'wonder' topic for 60 or 70 replies...no wonder you hate to see me
    wondering...;-)
    
    DougO

Note 6.55 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    
    >yeah, the last time I started 'wondering' something it ratholed the
    >'wonder' topic for 60 or 70 replies...no wonder you hate to see me
    >wondering...;-)
    
    you weren't "wondering". you were ranting and raving about such garbage
    that no one else on the planet agreed with. you were lost in the
    cooridoors of your mind blathering senselessly. you seem better today.

    opinions are just like *s, everybody's got one.
    
    DougO
    
    * Vonnegut, Cats Cradle.

>      <<< Note 6.57 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>
>
>    opinions are just like *s, everybody's got one.
>    
>    DougO
>    
>    * Vonnegut, Cats Cradle.


and most of them stink...

Our \john is one helluva guy, ensuring that the 'box is back for the
long weekend.

Nice goin', \john - I owe you a beer! Merry Christmas!

-Jack

    Well, perhaps I can claim credit; perhaps not.  

    If the power was just late in coming on, then "why thank you!"
    If some unknown 'Boxfriend performed intervention, "Thank you,
    masked man!"

    Guess we'll have to kick the habit another day.

    \john

    
    
    Well, good job, John.  Heck, grab the credit, what the hey.  Happy
    Holidays.
    
    
    Mike

     We mods are revisiting the obscenity/recognizable obscenity rule with
    an eye to provide greater latitude while retaining conformance to P&P
    and ease of enforcement. One may consider such a revisitation unwise
    given the dumbing down of soapbox over the past several years,
    nonetheless, we are willing to consider alternatives anyway. Note that
    there is no guarantee that anything will change, but we are considering
    modifying the policy.
    
     One worry is that allowing greater latitude in word choice will lead
    to a conference filled with obscenity laced trashtalk. Should we
    experience such an occurrence, it is highly likely we'd revert to the
    previous easy to enforce "nothing goes" stance. 
    
     The moderators would like to see what the consensus is regarding this
    issue to aid us in deciding what the policy will be.
    
     ** Note that asking this question does not rescind the policy in
    question. **   We will continue to enforce the current policies until
    such time as they change.
    
     for the mods,
    
     The Doctah

    i would happily see a box in which nobody talked trash.  it's much
    cleverer, and usually more biting, to phrase insults in clean language.

>    given the dumbing down of soapbox over the past several years,

Why thank you.

    
    Well, I'm not given to foul words, and the only note I ever got
    returned was an obscenity in a quote from LBJ.  If you quote
    Truman or Nixon or Johnson, I guess you have to clean up their
    language as you would yourself.
    
    I suppose it is too much to ask for intelligent discretion from the
    mods, given the general dumbing down over time among you Bonaparte
    wannabes.  (And Napoleon used a lot of RO's, too).
    
      bb

 >>   I suppose it is too much to ask for intelligent discretion from the
 >>   mods, given the general dumbing down over time among you Bonaparte
 >>   wannabes.  (And Napoleon used a lot of RO's, too).

	no need to generalize, mr. braucher.  not every mod would choose
	the same language.

    
    
    I don't think that even the mildest forms of R.O. are 
    the least bit necessary to get a point across.  Leave
    the policies as they are, or simply allow people to
    type "R.O."  where they'd like it to be, and let the
    readers fill in the so-called blank.
    
    
    Just my opinion....
    
    Terrie
    

    I think that if it ispart of a quote or in a news paper article then it
    should be allowed. To use nasty, obsene language just for the sake of
    it should be Mod censored.

    
    
    I think things are fine the way they are.  But then again, I'm a sad
    case.
    
    
    Mike

    Hey, I noticed that sleight-of-hand.  Change one policy to make it 
    easy to consolidate trashnotes and start a policy discussion on the
    obscenity issue.
    
    For the record, I like the trashnote policy.  Don't abuse it (I'm not
    worried.)
    
    Regarding the language issue, the vernacular seems to be accepting more
    and more words that were previously taboo.  Newt Gingrich's mom says
    bitch on tv?  And so do a million news commentators and press reports
    about the issue?  That word never used to be broadcast.  The profane
    is losing its impact.  I personally would prefer that when I write a
    100-line note and use one emphatic 'damn' that my note not be returned
    to me; as happened a few months ago.  If such lattitude gets abused
    then of course we'd quickly lose the freedom again.  I dunno if the
    population of this forum can be trusted not to push such limits for the
    benfit of us all.  I hope the mods decide to give it a try.
    
    DougO

>>    Hey, I noticed that sleight-of-hand.

    you're imagining things.  the two occurrences aren't related.

    >I suppose it is too much to ask for intelligent discretion from the mods
    
     Oh, I don't think that's really the problem. The problem comes when
    someone disagrees with the results of "intelligent discretion." Then we
    get lots of whining and it becomes a headache to deal with. None of us
    is a fulltime moderator here. None of us is paid to moderate. One of
    the things we try to avoid is the massive timesink, such as occurs when
    a controversy erupts in which the mods must participate. There are a
    lot more writers here than mods, and with a high traffic conference
    such as this things can get out of hand pretty easily. The more things
    are open to interpretation and discretion, the larger the debate over
    the propriety of any particular action. 
    
    >given the general dumbing down over time among you Bonaparte wannabes
    
     I have two things to say to this: 1) my comment about the general
    dumbing down of the conference was my opinion and is not necessarily
    shared by the other moderators. 2) if you really think we are power
    hungry, you are way off. This is a responsibility, and the glamour
    quotient is extremely small. And, if we are really such power hungry
    control freaks, why would we solicit input from the participants
    relative to increasing freedom for writers while potentially increasing
    the amount of work we'd have to do? Did you think about that? Or were
    you merely taking a cheap swipe?

    >Hey, I noticed that sleight-of-hand.
    
     We originally wanted to change both rules at the same time, but we
    didn't have consensus on both policies. No hidden agenda, nouveau
    hydra. :-)

    A couple of boxes back, I made the point, half in jest, that perhaps
    the box should allow the level of language that is currently acceptable
    on television, which was at that time going through a crude "adolescent"
    phase, mostly due to the Susan Harris programs (e.g., "Golden Girls").
    
    But I'd prefer that things remain as they are; it's much more
    challenging and interesting to come up with more articulate ways
    to express a strongly-felt thought or belief.  Beyond that, imagine
    the battles of a few months ago, had they been freely laced with
    assorted strong obscenities?  Why expose ourselves (er...) to greater
    risk of personnel intervention and the like, for such little value-added
    in return?
    
    Chris

    I didn't think it was a conspiracy, just a tactical diversion.
    I wanted to let you know you didn't sneak it by *all* of us.
    
    DougO

    It would seem that the F word is what this is all about no? And perhaps
    shot with an "i"? Do we really need to use these words?
    
    Glenn

>>    I didn't think it was a conspiracy, just a tactical diversion.

	it wasn't that either.

    
    i would vote for a continuation of the present policy.
    
    jeff

    I doubt DH Lawrence would pass the Soapbox censors, and certainly not
    Henry Miller -- or most contemporary novelists, for that matter.
    
    Still, let's keep it clean.

    
    
    
    Hey, I saw all the mods together on a grassy knoll a while ago......
    
    
    
    Mike

	I wood vote but Im part of the dumming down and
	donot understand the kwestchun.

<--  haaa!! good one.  ;>

	I thinbk obsenities are not neccesary. Use things like
$%!@# and s... to let folks fill in the blanks. As I believe
Blinder noted, there are far more interesting and clever ways
to get a point across. Also consider this is open to the "public"
to view. If the notes where between two people that would be 
different.
	I vote not to relax them.   IMHO.

    	Retain the current policy.

    Not only that, keep the same policy too.

 
I suggest we keep the same policy...anybody agree?

    Oh well, since you put it that way, now I have to disagree. Let soapbox
    become raw and wicked I say!

    
    Perhaps amend the policy to allow quoted articles with
    profanity to remain posted, as long as said profanity isn't
    malicious.
    
    I remember having an internet article returned because a swear was
    inbedded somewhere in the text. It really didn't seem worth the effort
    in that particular case.
    
    Still, no complaints, mods here do a good job.
    
    							Hank

I don't really care except that I would prefer not to have to edit quotes for
R.O.

Bob

    
    
    I do however think we should amend the rules and make it against policy
    to have Glenn run around in his bra and panties.
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    re, .73   -  Hey, Doc, that's easy for you to say, "Oh, it's a tough
    job, etc."  while meanwhile the babes are hangin all over ya, what
    with yer special privs...
    
      It's a pity we ain't multimedia.  You could put violins behind
    your note.  And cheap cracks woiks both sides a the street, got me ?
    
      bb

>>    while meanwhile the babes are hangin all over ya, what
>>    with yer special privs...

	if any babes are "hangin all over" Mark, it ain't 'cuz of
	his special privs, trust me.

    >what with yer special privs...
    
     Ooooh! How incredibly exciting. Special privs to be called to answer
    to Ron Glover every time two adult children take a pissing contest too
    far and get hurt feelings. Yeah, that's a real treat. 
    
     But if all you want is to be a soapbox mod, why not just ask? The
    worst that can happen is we say yes; the best is that we say, "No,
    you're far too good for we mere mortals, but thanks for the offer to
    condescend to join us bonapatists."
    
    >It's a pity we ain't multimedia.  You could put violins behind
    >your note. 
    
     And the sounds of a baby crying behind yours? Yeah, that would do it.
    
     And I haven't had "babes hanging all over me" since 7th grade, not
    counting my kids. :-)
    

    Hang the mods, burn the roolz, pillage the box and then have tea.  I
    have no problems with the current set of rules since I possess no
    capability of having any obcenities passing through these lips, er,
    fingers.  Pure as the driven snow.  You would agree with me if you were
    too.
    
    Brian

    
    
    Don't feel slighted Di, I'll be your boxmod groupie. :')
    
    
    Mike

    
    I'd be glad to hang all over Mark, 'ceptin he's at LKG 8^p.

	thanks, mikey.  it would be tough to do better, i must say.  ;>

    How about if I became your groupie Di? Would that be better?

	 what's this "if" stuff?

    
    
    She said it would tough to do better, Glenn.  From me to you would be
    like going from fine china to eating out of a garbage pail.  
    
    
    
    Mike

    What I meant your majesty is that, um, ah, is that I awaited your royal
    permission to be your groupie, and if you would have me, would I be
    better?

    ;-)

	<----------- [ Burp ]		excuse me........%^)

Glenn would make a fine groupie, seeing you get him
complete with his own internal, uh, group.

    Policy seems fine the way it is.  I see no need for intellegent people
    to use profanity...shows a lack of vocabulary, IMO.
    
    -steve

    Not only that, it shows that they don't know a lot of words.

Worrying about this policy is likely to result in a situation that can only
be described as

				F U B A R

    For me it is hard to answer the question without knowing what the
    moderators consider obscenities.  Could you please publish a list of
    all the words that we noters are not currently allowed to use?
    
    Thanks,
    -- Jim
    
    (Seriously, I'd go with what Binder in .64 stated.  Hell who knows, we
    might become damn better writers if we're not allowed to use
    obscenities.)

    Well, far be it from me to go against the grain... :-)
    
    All this stuff about finding non-obscene ways to insult each other,
    and that making for better literature, is definitely a laugh! I
    think the guidelines should be relaxed. I don't think the guidelines
    should be eliminated, as they exist to keep the conference in line
    with corporate policy. I would suggest, simply, somewhat less
    dutiful enforcement of the guidelines...
    
    Not that I'll make a major stink about no change in policy... it's not
    a big deal; just a bit antiquated...
    
    -b

    Keep it as is.

    I'm against any language policy.

    You should be held responsible for the content of your note. 
    
    Unfortunatly, Susie can't write a reply without <r.o.> in it,
    and Billy can't stand to see <r.o.> in phosphor.  Instead of
    working it out between themselves, Billy winds up in Personnel
    saying he's being oppressed and then the moderators get heat
    from some a higherup saying "you are not following the PP&P."

    Too bad, huh.

    \john

    
    Let's pan Billy & Susie.

    Let's sue Billy and Pannie.
    
    Let's bill Pannie and Susie.
    
    -b

Lack of willingness to take personal responsibility and a
propensity toward whining. God, what a winning combination.
A marriage made in heaven for sure.

    I vote for raw and wicked, screw this pannie person!

    
    Leave it alone...
    
    re: .97
    
    mz_deb...
    
     I'd be careful... I wouldn't tangle with Betsy on a bet! :)
    

    
    
    As John said, it will ultimately be the mods and sys owner/mgr who will
    spend time trying to sort this stuff out.  Let it be.
    
    
    Mike

    
    The status quo needs improvement.
    
    I consider it blatantly hypocritical and ridiculous to allow
    abbreviations but disallow the same words explicitly written. 
    
    It is equally hypocritical to let obscenities stand as long as the
    important parts are asterisked. (I reckon this is Sysiphus' work
    for the Mods)
    
    We need to be just and consequent. No sidepaths. 
    
    Heiko
    
    

    
    if the policy has not changed, surely .63 contains a recognizable
    obscenity which requires action from the mods.
    
    thanks,
    jeff

	.119

	how refreshing

    Having heard from the lunatic fringe in .119 and .120 it should
    be obvious to everyone why a simple "list of forbidden words" just
    isn't reasonable or practical.

    Just an example:

        Sure we delete "fuck you".
        Do we delete "fuk yu"?
        Do we delete "f*(& y*""?  (sorry, can't do <compose> on my PC)
        Do we delete "f you"?
        Do we delete "<fornicate> you"?
        Do we delete "f    y  "?
        Do we delete "     you"?
        Do we delete "f2k you"?
        Do we delete "fork hugh"?

    How many more do you think people could come up with, if we posted
    this as an absolute list?  And, with deference to George Carlin,
    what about the two-way words?  "You can prick your finger, but don't
    finger your <R.O.>"

    And what about people who don't understand the difference between a
    "curse" and an "obscenity"?  How on earth are we to enforce the whims
    of J. Random rabid moralist?  

    Really, the solution is simple:
        Take responsibility for your notes.
        Don't use obscenities in a family notesfile.
        Don't go out of your way to take offense at things.

    \john

    	I wonder if that should be deleted for R.O...

    Is the issue swearing in general, or someone getting sworn at?
    It seems that if some has a problem with someone, specifically, they'll
    take it up with the "offending" party for a resolution.
    
    Is the issue someone running to WWP and crying "Geez Ron, soapbox is
    filthy".  If so, leave the policy as it is.
    
    If the issue is preventing someone from running to WWP and saying
    "Some soapboxer called me a <R.O.>head..."  then maybe a selective
    enforcement deal is in order.
                                 
    Judgement call, that's what the moderators are for. 

    I think this should be Filed Under Carnal Knowledge.

    Ever wonder were the word came from?

    
    Oh, Ron, really.

	i don't know what this "lunatic fringe" is all about, at least
	when referring to Heiko's note.  for what it's worth, i think he
	makes perfect sense.  
	it _is_ blatantly ridiculous to delete spelled-out obscenities and
	not partial (every-bit-as-recognizable) ones.  we should be consistent.
	since it's against company policy to use obscenities, people just
	shouldn't do it.  but, if we're going to allow it, then we're
	basically saying "to hell with the company policy", and if so, then
	it makes no difference whether things are spelled out or not.
	we're only kidding ourselves otherwise.

  RE: .122

The American Heritage Dictionary

  moderate - adj. 1. Not excessive or extreme. 2. Temperate. 3. Average; 
mediocre. 4. Opposed to radical views or measures. -n. One who holds moderate 
views or opinions. -eted, -eting. 1. To make or become less violent, severe, 
or extreme. 2. To preside over as a moderator. [latin. moderatus, p.p. of 
moderare, to regulate.]

  moderator n. 1. One that moderates. 2. A presiding officer.

    ----------------------------------------------------

  "lunatic fringe"???

  "rabid moralist"???


  Methinks thou hast blown it big time....
  

>    It seems that if some has a problem with someone, specifically, they'll
>    take it up with the "offending" party for a resolution.

Oh, MadMike, yer wearin' those rose-colored glasses again, arencha?

| <<< Note 6.124 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>



| Is the issue someone running to WWP and crying "Geez Ron, soapbox is
| filthy".  If so, leave the policy as it is.

	But Mike, did ya know that Geez is considered a slam against Christ by
many folk? Maybe notes with that word should be set hidden.... 

    
    
    Will a moderator please respond to my note and/or my e-mail on the same
    subject?  slinging epithets may be a response of sort but is not
    satisfactory.
    
    thanks again (so far for nothing)!
    
    jeff
    
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 6.120                Conference Policy Discussion                120 of 131
USAT05::BENSON                                        6 lines  10-JAN-1995 09:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    if the policy has not changed, surely .63 contains a recognizable
    obscenity which requires action from the mods.
    
    thanks,
    jeff

	how does the curse in .63 differ from all the other "GD"s
	that have been left standing in this conference?

	Jeff just like to whine...

    
    di,
    
    i didn't see all the others, and if there are others they should be
    removed for "recognizable obscenity".
    
    jeff
    
    

And, Jeff, why don't you tell all of us, myself included, why you
never bothered to send _me_ email, if what I wrote in .63 was so
grievously offensive to you?

    jeff, you volunteering to go find them all?  ;>


    methinks there's a difference between a curse, like "hell", "damn", etc.,
    and an obscenity anyways.    

    I guess you don't want soapbox to stay around.
    
    It's people like you whot cause unrest.

    
    
    For Mohammed's sake!!!! What's going on here????
    

Watch that! I have Muslim friends.

    
    back off for Buddha's sake Jack!!!!
    
    

All I said was, "this piece of halibut is fit for Jehovah."

    
    i probably should have but i didn't.  your specific words and general
    attitude toward issues concerning morality, Christianity, and those
    holding fast to a sacred world-view, etc.led me to believe that your use 
    of that particular obscenity is not accidental nor necessarily
    habitual.
    
    in any case, i assume that you have known for some time now (at least
    since I posted that note) that i was unhappy about your use of that
    obscenity and you've done nothing about it whatsoever.
    
    since i have now publicly shared this with you directly, what will you
    do?
    
    jeff

    
    >since i have now publicly shared this with you directly, what will you
    >do?
    
    ...he said, with a steely, Clint Eastwood-type squint.
    

>    methinks there's a difference between a curse, like "hell", "damn", etc.,
>    and an obscenity anyways.    

    
    please. for all of our sakes, what is an obscenity?  please provide a
    definition and then go to whoever wrote the policy and find out what
    their definition is then please share it with us.  we can hardly follow
    a policy without knowing what it actually is.
    
    i'll offer the dictionary's definition for starters:
    
    1. offensive to one's feelings, or to prevailing notions, of modesty
       or decency; lewd.
    2. disgusting; repulsive.
    
    the use of the term in question fits both one and two for me without
    qualification.
    
    jeff

    
    
    
    If you think it's wrong, don't say it.
    
    
    Mike

    
>>    please provide a
>>    definition and then go to whoever wrote the policy and find out what
>>    their definition is then please share it with us.
    
    no.  i said "methinks".  your opinion may differ.

>    please. for all of our sakes, what is an obscenity?  please provide a
>    definition and then go to whoever wrote the policy and find out what
>    their definition is then please share it with us.  we can hardly follow
>    a policy without knowing what it actually is.

I'm sure that going to those who wrote the policy in order to draw attention
is exactly what shouldn't happen. But, I'll tell you what, Jeff, as soon
as we get this network business straightened out so that BACK40 sees me coming
from MOLAR again, instead of from 26xy:: or whatever, I'll go back and repost
.63 without that nasty word which is offending your sensitivities. How's that
sound, Bucko? I'd do it now, but I can't until the nodename matches again.

Now, let's take the reaminder or this offline so that folks can get back to
noting without listening to this drivel.

    "ream-inder" ooooo sound like a marital aid to me...
    
    Chip
    
    P.S. might even be an obsenity in some circles! :-)

>>                      <<< Note 6.150 by USAT05::BENSON >>>
>>                     -< warning! warning!!! danger!!!!!!! >-

	i'm really tiring of your threatening tone.  

    
    .148 di,
        
    i'm really tiring of asking you nicely to get rid of your opinion
    (which happens to exclude all recourse for my complaint) and get a fact
    with which such an issue may be resolved.
    
    jeff

    hit 'em Di', hit 'em!
    

    
    some people can't take a hint as is obvious by their complete lack of a
    formal, decent response, slinging epithets, evading the point and
    generally ignoring another's  request of them.  
    
    but many people in hindsight realize that hints are sometimes subtle,
    out of kindness or decorum or liberality, building to a crescendo
    when the hearer is too obdurate to be moved by subtlety.
    
    jeff 

    The American Heritage Dictionary (Office Edition)

    rab-id  adj.
        1.  Of or afflicted with rabies
       *2.  Overzealous; fanatical
        3.  Raging; furious
            * my particular usage

    We can play this stupid game all day.  We're talking about someone who
    officially requests "goddam" to be deleted because it's "an obscenity."

    Let's get real, ok?
    \john

    .154

	that's really deep, jeff.  thank you for that bit of insight
	into subtlety, obdurate behavior, etc.

	i see that mr. delbalso will be modifying his note to placate
	you.  any more problems?

    
    you, harney, should resign as moderator.  you don't seem to have either
    the mindset or manner required to be a good one.
    
    jeff

    
    Amazing.  Just amazing.  
    
    
    And if he does, the box goes along with him.  

    
    RE: .155
    
    John,
    
     You can make comments like that anytime you want, but I believe that
    when you do, it should not be under the auspices of a moderator. You
    are more than free to qualify your responses with something like
    "moderator hat off"....
    
      That was my only concern....
    

    Jef, if you go into a smoky bar, do you go around saying R.O.! R.O.!
    and complaining to the management every time you hear an offensive word?

    Well, picture soapbox as a dark smoky bar with hundreds of people in
    it, you can't see them, but you can hear everything they say.

    Relax will you and stop grandstanding on this issue? If you're so
    worried about being polluted by the world then stay away from it. If
    you're offended by the soapbox language then stay away from it.

    Glenn

    
      RE .160
    
        If you have a problem with di's attitude then take it up with her
    OFF line! you write about RO's well note .160 is something I would
    expect from a little kid. if mr delbaso (sp) can swear then so can I.
    
       For the most part I think that this conference is very well
    moderated, most all participants abide by the rules, and remember also
    that soapbox is also probably one of the most active files we have
    access too. so if you dont like the rules on this playground well ya
    got 2 choices, learn to live with them, or go elsewhere.
    
                                                      Lee
    

   > Jef, if you go into a smoky bar, do you go around saying R.O.! R.O.!
   > and complaining to the management every time you hear an offensive word?

    of course not.  smokey bears have no policies against obscentiy.  in
    fact, they probably require them.
    
    >Well, picture soapbox as a dark smoky bar with hundreds of people in
    >it, you can't see them, but you can hear everything they say.

    you may view soapbox in this way.  i do not.  nor does digital.
    
    >Relax will you and stop grandstanding on this issue? If you're so
    >worried about being polluted by the world then stay away from it. If
    >you're offended by the soapbox language then stay away from it.

    i'm fairly relaxed.  i'm not worried about being polluted.  policies
    prohibiting obscenities are valid and appropriate.  and the exercise of
    those policies must be consistent and fair.  and moderators have a real
    job whether they like it or not.  and i expect them to perform it
    appropriately for they serve a good purpose.
    
    jeff

> if mr delbaso (sp)


Actually, it's quite easy to both spell and pronounce. The first part
(Del) rhymes with "bell" but starts with the "d" sound. Then there's
the "b" sound from the letter B and the last part (also), well, that's
"also" pronounced just like the word "also".

YVW,NNTTM,HAND

    Neither do most smokey bars :-).
    
    It seems a bunch of folks have had their wheaties peed in recently.  We
    have far, far too many other intellitopics to debate for us to get
    wrapped up in this little issue.  
    
    Brian

    Well then, if you want all the rules enforced all the time and you want
    to abide by all of the corporate policies then you can kiss soapbox
    good bye.
    
    Glenn

    Jeff opposes a relaxation of the obscenity rule.  Jeff is therefore
    transparently manipulating the debate to show the possible problems
    with relaxing the rule.  Of course, inappropriate obscenities are
    easily recognized by skillful debaters and can be turned against their
    originators if necessary.  More often, they will be recognized as
    contributing nothing and either ignored or serve to generate ratholes. 
    If you oppose Jeff's position, and believe that obscenity has a place
    in soapbox for useful, if sparing, emphasis, then don't let Jeff's
    manipulation succeed; ignore it, as we will do in other such
    occurrences of inapproriate, even childish, uses of obscenity.
    
    I repeat my doubts that the forum has sufficient gravitas to understand
    and benfit from the strategy I recommend, unfortunately.
    
    DougO

    
    thank you mr. delbalso (its jack, right?) for your planned action. i
    appreciate it.
    
    bucko

    
    Dell....bbbbb....also....
    
    Del...balso...
    
    Delbalso!
    
    Hey, it works!
    
    :^)
    

    
    RE: .166
    
    Along with seeing it go away...
    

    Thank you Gilligan.

	Jeff,

	Soapbox bends alot of Digital's rules. If you'd like to see the most
boring, PC notesfile in your life then go ahead and complain to management about
the box. It'll either be deleted or become so lame it won't be worth reading..


jim

    I would ask all my fellow boxers...whom I respect regardless of their 
    positions on issues, to please refrain from using the Lords name in
    vain.  This isn't a matter of virgin ears or any such thing.  I believe
    it is somewhat common knowledge that using this term is a pet peeve of
    alot of people. 
    
    It's simply a matter of respecting others belief systems and that sort
    of thing.  I don't think it's alot to ask.  Like the old saying goes,
    all things are lawful but not all things are profitable.
    
    -Jack

    
    RE: .171
    
    I be remembering that when I see some of the same from now on bunkie...
    ;)
    

    It would seem that a barrel of worms has been opened.
    
    We don't like it.
    
    
    Glenn/Deirdre/Pamela/Franny/Ned/Dierdre/Anton/Sean/Alice/Jimi/Pauline/Rex/
    Nathan/Melanie/Ursula/Hildegard
    
    
    
    
    

    
    <-----
    
    They trouble me....
    

    I have informed Jeff officially that the moderators will
    not recognize "goddam" as an obscenity.

    His next step is to escalate his complaint to his management.

    That is his right, and his only recourse (within Digital).  Please
    don't disuade him.

    \john

    
    i want you folks to know that .160 (where I used an obscenity to make a
    point) was deleted by the moderators.  i find it curious that the
    deletion was not posted in the customary note.  why is that?!
    
    also, i want you to know that a moderator, harney, has formally denied
    my request that the obscenity originally in question (commonly called
    blasphemy, sacrilege, taking the Lord's name in vain) will not be
    considered an obscenity by the moderators.  another moderator has
    strongly implied that she too will not treat the presence of such
    language as an obscenity.
    
    in effect, the mods have decided that what is commonly considered an
    obscenity and by definition is an obscentiy shall not be considered 
    an obscenity by them in this conference.  my only recourse, according
    to them, is to escalate to management or personnel.  can you believe
    this?!!  obdurate really is the right word to describe them and clearly
    is the soapbox word of the day - not only because of its unique sound
    when pronounced but also in this case its absolutely perfect usage and
    application.
    
    for your information, i will not escalate this to anyone.  it is enough
    for me personally to have shed so much light on so much hypocrisy.
    
    i apologize to those of you of goodwill who were caused any undue
    anxiety.
    
    jeff
    

RE: 6.178 by USAT05::BENSON

4.11,  Mr Benson.

    It was posted in the deleted note note.

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 4.11                     Deleted Note History                      11 of 11
ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney"                        5 lines  11-JAN-1995 12:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deleted 6.160  r.o.
    Deleted 35.30 for quoting 6.160.


           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 6.178                Conference Policy Discussion                178 of 178
USAT05::BENSON                                       29 lines  11-JAN-1995 12:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    i want you folks to know that .160 (where I used an obscenity to make a
    point) was deleted by the moderators.  i find it curious that the
    deletion was not posted in the customary note.  why is that?!
    

Jeff,
   Calm down and read what's being written in here. \john had already
posted the deletion notice (in the customary note) thirteen minutes
before you posted .-1.

>    It would seem that a barrel of worms has been opened.
>    
>    We don't like it.
>    
>    
>    Glenn/Deirdre/Pamela/Franny/Ned/Dierdre/Anton/Sean/Alice/Jimi/Pauline/Rex/
>    Nathan/Melanie/Ursula/Hildegard
    
Amazing coincidence!  Those are the names of my pet worms!

    Stop that, it's silly.
    
    Started out as a nice little idea about old ladies attacking young
    moderators, but now it's just got silly.

    re: .159 (Krawiecki)

>     You can make comments like that anytime you want, but I believe that
>    when you do, it should not be under the auspices of a moderator. You
>    are more than free to qualify your responses with something like
>    "moderator hat off"....
    
Why would anybody note AS a moderator??  Other than 4.* and 5.* which are
related to the mechanics of the conference, all my notes are as a noter.
I don't have the time or desire to maintain two noting personas.  It's
always just me, John, who happens to be a moderator in my spare time.

But I DO understand your point, and appreciate what you're saying.  I'll
try to incorporate that line in future notes.

\john
    (moderator hat OFF)

    
    Jeff brings up a valid point...
    
    What is the criteria for an obscenity?
    
    Is it the moderators judgment?
    
    Does Digital have a "preferred" list?
    
    If a person of the muslim faith were to write the mods and complain
    about me saying "For Muhammed's sake!", would they be as quick to brush
    off the complaint as they do for someone complaining of "goddamn"??
    

I personally don't find the current situation to be oppressive, repressive
or draconian.

But, then, I'm one of those freakin' cultured types.

> I don't have the time or desire to maintain two noting personas.

You're a mere shadow of Glenn/...

    
      Benson :  has anybody ever found your appropriate adjective ?
    
      bb

    i fear we're headed for the opine abyss...

  How true!

  How wonderfully true!

  How wonderfully , bubblingly , frothingly , burstingly true!

  What a truly ecstasy inducingly correct observation!
    

re: .178 (Jeff)

<MODERATOR HAT ON>

My habit is to notice or be pointed to an offending note, copy it for
local storage, forward it to the author and other mods, issue SET MOD
command, delete the note, and post in 4.last.

If you have a problem with that, just holler.

\john

<END MODERATOR HAT ON>

.168>    mr. delbalso (its jack, right?)

Yes, it is, but only my friends are allowed to use that.

    If I choose to take the Lords name in vein I will.
    
    If I want to burn the American flag I will ( I fought for the right
    to).
    
    If my wife choose's to have an abortion I`ll support her through out
    the process.
    
    I don`t care if you (generally speaking) like it or not.

    So crane, you don't mind if I say F you right over the net?  Maybe you
    don't but the moderators would...understandably.
    
    That's the bone of contention here...the lack of consistency with the
    moderator in question.  
    
    -Jack

    I wish you'd all just drop it.

    
>      Benson :  has anybody ever found your appropriate adjective ?
    
 
    yes.  principled is the word.  however, those that lack strong conviction
    (particularly moral conviction) can't grasp its meaning and for lack of
    experience can't pronounce it or use it in a sentence.
    
    jeff

    Jack,
    If you have a problem with the mods then perhaps you should take it off
    line. 

    It so happens that both my wife and I used to work in radio.
    So I called her and asked her to look in the FCC guidebook
    that we were given when we obtained our broadcast licenses.
    There is a section which rather clearly spells out what you
    cannot say on radio, TV, or any broadcast medium under FCC
    control. The list of "disallowed words" does not include
    the word in question. It is perfectly OK to say that word
    on national TV or radio.
    
    Now, I realize this is not radio or TV. But, I think it is
    worth noting that the use of the word is probably in line
    with the most commonly used source of what is considered
    obscene speach.
    
    I have chosen not to use the word myself, in deference to
    the people who are offended by it. I do not think that
    there is any reason to expect the moderators to undertake
    such filtering themselves... especially when there are
    other paths to resolving the conflict (such as Jack's
    offer to delete the note which started this debate.)
    
    -b

>.168>    mr. delbalso (its jack, right?)

>Yes, it is, but only my friends are allowed to use that.

    well, i do like knowing where i stand, mr. delbalso.  thanks for the
    clarification.
    
    jeff

re: .193 (Jack)

<MODERATOR HAT ON>
I've been moderating this notesfile for 6 years, and I've NEVER
deleted "goddam" as an obscenity, nor has any other moderator that
I've known.

What more consistency do you want?? 

<END MODERATOR HAT ON>

Oh, you want it YOUR way.

How transparent.

\john

    policy SNARF

    
    it seems absurd for the mods to solicit a discussion on obscenities and
    then have people say, loosely "take it off line", "just drop it",
    "escalate to your manager if you must" and so on in the resulting 
    discussion.
    
    jeff

    <--- You propose a solution which isn't manageable.

RE: 6.201 by USAT05::BENSON

Proposal:  "let us look into easing the rules of soapbox..."

J.B.:      "I DEMAND MORE RULES!"

Answers:   "take it off line"
           "just drop it"
           "escalate to your manager if you must"

    Dear Mr. Crane:
    
    Not really so much a problem with Mr Harney...just addressing your
    uppity reply about fighting for your right to say what you want when
    you want.  I was pointing out that this is not the case...otherwise, we
    wouldn't need moderators.
    
    John, no I don't want it my way...and yes you are consistent with the
    non deletion of the word...but you have proven that obscenity is only
    relative to ones perception or definition of it.
    
    I just happen to equate the use of goddamn with calling ones mother a
    whore...or calling one's wife a bitch.  Therefore, by my paradigm, it
    appears to me as an obscene use of a term.  It is obviously a bone of
    contention in society as even though the word may be used on radio, I
    have heard it used once in twenty years (Dr. Brudnoy when somebody
    didn't turn their radion volume down).  
    
    That's why I wrote the appeal to my fellow boxers some 10-20 replies
    ago.  Since it is not viewed as an obscenity, please refrain from using
    it out of respect of others belief systems.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    
    i do not!!  obscenity is commonly understood if difficult to define.  a
    consistent application by the mods of recognizing what is commonly 
    understood as an obscenity is the solution.  it is quite simple.
    
    jeff

re: .201 (Jeff)

<MODERATOR HAT OFF.  REPEAT.  OFF>

It seems absurd that some would say, ".63 contains a r.o.
which requires action from the mods" and then claim to be
involved in a "discussion."

\john

    <MODERATOR HAT STILL OFF>

    I'm looking for an honest answer here from mods.
    
    Do people regularly complain to you about obscenity?
    
    If so, what are the most common words they complain about?
    
    If not, why do we need mods?

>    I just happen to equate the use of goddamn with calling ones mother a
>    whore...or calling one's wife a bitch.

I'm curious, Jack, as to why you draw this parallel. I can understand to
a degree that taking the name of your god in vain may be distasteful to
you, but in the context in which this term is normally used, how does
it equate to a direct insult of a loved one? My understanding of the
origin of the term as a curse is that it presumes to call upon one's
god to wreak a punishment at man's desire - more of an "improper use"
of prayer or entreaty to a diety. But a direct insult? I don't follow.

(And, yes, you may still call me Jack. :^)

    ... well, the 'box is still here (as it has been for a long time).
    
    people consistently participate. my guess is there are more travellers
    in this one than most other notes.
    
    G-o-d know moderating in here can't be easy (prolly anxiety provoking
    most of the time). 
    
    so, i take my hat off to all the current and past mods for keeping this
    afloat and protecting us against ourselves (a lot).
    
    Chip
    

>in the context in which this term is normally used, how does
>it equate to a direct insult of a loved one? My understanding of the
>origin of the term as a curse is that it presumes to call upon one's
>god to wreak a punishment at man's desire - more of an "improper use"
>of prayer or entreaty to a diety. But a direct insult? I don't follow.

There are two ways of using it.

1. Irreverent prayer:  "[May] God damn x."

2. Irreverent statement about something having already been condemned
   by God: "The God damned President's wife."

The second is very much like saying "Hillary is a bitch."

/john

re: .207 (Jack)

<MODERATOR HAT ON>
>    Do people regularly complain to you about obscenity?
    Define regularly.  I'd say "sometimes".

>    If so, what are the most common words they complain about?
    Usually the fword or the sword.

>    If not, why do we need mods?
    Corporate mandate.

<END MODERATOR HAT ON>
\john

    Jack:
    
    Yeah...what John C. said!!  By the way, I am honored to still be able
    to call you Jack!! :-)

re: .210

That's nice but I was really interested in Jack Martin's opinion,
if you don't mind.

    
    RE: .63
    
    
    >But, then, I'm one of those freakin' cultured types.
    
    
     In your dreams.....
    
     :)
    

    
    er -- how do we know what God has damned?

| <<< Note 6.157 by USAT05::BENSON >>>


| you, harney, should resign as moderator.  you don't seem to have either the 
| mindset or manner required to be a good one.


	He has the system though Jeff.... :-)  btw, yer wrong about him....

	I second that..............Harney has been more
than fair and accomodating.	IMHO....

Or, perhaps more interestingly, what he's dammed, which was the original
term in question.

Sure as hell he hasn't been keepin' an eye on California . . . 

re: .146

I doubt you will get anyone in upper management to define 'obscenity' anymore
than you can get a definition of 'solicitation' out of them.  It's undefined
on purpose.

Bob

    Harney once turned me into a newt!

    

    ...but I got better.
    

| <<< Note 6.173 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

| I would ask all my fellow boxers...whom I respect regardless of their 
| positions on issues, to please refrain from using the Lords name in
| vain.  This isn't a matter of virgin ears or any such thing.  I believe
| it is somewhat common knowledge that using this term is a pet peeve of
| alot of people.

	Jack, do we stop at the ovious ones or do we now include geez, great
ceasers ghost, and all the other ones that people say are using the Lords name
in vain? HMMM???

	mr. benson, do not assume what actions i will or will not take
	regarding obscenities, until this discussion is over and some
	decisions have been made.  i can assure you i will comply with
	them, whatever they are.

	and oh, by the way -

	<removes moderator hat, placing it daintily on the desk, pointy
	side up>

	go bang yer head.  i thank you.

	<replaces hat>

	sincerely,
	diane

    
    .218
    
    Can he say hell 8^)?

| <<< Note 6.177 by ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney" >>>

| I have informed Jeff officially that the moderators will not recognize 
| "goddam" as an obscenity.

| His next step is to escalate his complaint to his management.

	But John Covert ruined it for everyone as after his ==wn== problems
were solved, personnel said they won't be involved in solving notes problems
anymore. 

    If the issue of great ceasers ghost came up...in true sincerity, I
    would honor that persons request.
    
    As I said, all things are lawful but not all things are expedient. 
    There are slang terms referring to gays that I would not use out of
    respect for our gay participants first...and secondly because I believe
    it promotes hate!
    
    -Jack

Caesar's.

    If you go back and look at the number of folks saying keep it as is and
    the number saying no I wanna be able to deficate anywhere I please,what
    is the tally?

    
    >personnel said they won't be involved in solving notes problems
    >anymore.
    
    ...nor should they be, since (technically speaking, Employee Interest
       conferences should not be occupying the company time of the
       participants.
     

| <<< Note 6.195 by USAT05::BENSON >>>


| >      Benson :  has anybody ever found your appropriate adjective ?


| yes.  principled is the word.  however, those that lack strong conviction
| (particularly moral conviction) can't grasp its meaning and for lack of
| experience can't pronounce it or use it in a sentence.


	Does principled = someone who bitches about a deleted note not being
posted as such when the reality of the situation was that you just didn't look
in the correct note? I think the word that would fit rymes with cupid.

	Boy Glen, you are a Charlie............%^)


	Give em he(double hockey sticks).....

Now boys, . . . .

| <<< Note 6.204 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| I just happen to equate the use of goddamn with calling ones mother a
| whore...or calling one's wife a bitch.  

	But it's ok to call your boss one..... talk about being hypocritical
Jack. God, that was too easy to point out.

| Therefore, by my paradigm, it appears to me as an obscene use of a term.  

	But again... it's ok to call your boss one...

| That's why I wrote the appeal to my fellow boxers some 10-20 replies
| ago.  Since it is not viewed as an obscenity, please refrain from using
| it out of respect of others belief systems.

	So when are ya gonna stop calling yer boss a bitch?

    
    What does a moderator's hat look like ?  I imagine it as sort of
    like the tall one archbishops wear ?
    
      bb

    I picture the moderators looking like the Lord Mayor in Monty
    Python's "Fish License" sketch.
    
    Or Dear. I said Lord. <R.O.> !! :-)
    
    -b

	Re .233

	Bwahahahahaha........

	How about a paper hat folded out of newspaper, you know
the pointy type ..........%^)

    .199
    
    John:
    
    You make Pat Sweeney look like a Boy Scout.
    
    Ron

| <<< Note 6.225 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| If the issue of great ceasers ghost came up...in true sincerity, I would honor
| that persons request.

	But what of geez Jack?

| There are slang terms referring to gays that I would not use out of respect 
| for our gay participants first...and secondly because I believe it promotes 
| hate!

	Ahhhh, I was hoping you'd mention that. I say words like fag all the
time. I get mail from people who use a ton of words that deal with gays. What
comes into play is INTENT. That is the KEY word. If we were having fun and you
threw out some stereotype, I'd probably laugh. Ask wannamonkey about that.
Hell, I do it in here. If someone was being mean about it, THEN it would
promote hate. Can you see the difference? It also ties in with the geez words
and such. INTENT!


Glen

>                      <<< Note 6.233 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
>>    What does a moderator's hat look like ?

	get yourself a little image of Napoleon going.  okay, now 
	look at his head.  hope this helps.

    	re .224
    
    	I don't see that as "ruined" at all.  PErsonnel shouldn't ever
    	be involved in EI notes issues.

    .127
    
    Deb:
    
    You don't know nor understand half of what's going on here.  Just don't
    blindly support John until you have more facts.  If you want, write me
    off-line.
    
    Ron
    
    

    This is a very important note and I want all to pay attention to it!
    
    REPOST FROM THE COMMIE CHUNG STRING
    
>>    There were two women in a former organization I worked in.  One was
>>    friendly, intelligent, respectful to others, and had a very good
>>    self image.  The other woman was assertive, felt like she needed to
>>    prove herself, not fully respectful of others, demanded the bottom line.
>>    Guess what...she was a bitch and everybody knew it.  The other
>>    woman showed integrity...the bitchy woman lacked respect from those who
>>    worked for her...and guess what, she didn't last.  So much for
>>    being a bitch!
    
    Glen, I want to make it abundantly clear that I DID NOT call my boss a
    bitch.  The note above refers to another life...another time.  The
    woman in question has since left Digital, is now working on husband
    number three, and is socially inept...IMHO.  She was never my boss, she
    supervised another group of misfits!
    
    There are people who read this file whom I work with and I don't want
    it misconstued that I feel my current manager is a bitch.  I never
    referred to my manager as this!  
    
    Now to address the context of the note, I find the term Bitch an
    obscene term and I never have used it in the conference for general
    discussion.  I used the term bitch in the Commie Chung string because
    that happened to be the topic of discussion at the time.  The woman
    above defined herself as a bitch and acted in accordance to how a
    typical male would see her...an insipid bitch!  Sorry, that was the
    topic of discussion Glen.  
    
    So to answer your question, goddamn and bitch are two terms I feel lack
    dignity and tact.  It is no reflection on the person using it other
    than to make them aware that it is uncharacteristic of being a man or a
    lady.  We all know what hot buttons people have and bringing up great
    caeser''''''''s ghost is a strawman at best by the way!
    
    
    -Jack

>>get yourself a little image of Napoleon going.  okay, now 
>>	look at his head.  hope this helps.


	What I want to know is what is the hand doing in the jacket. ??

re: .233

In the few times I have to put one on in FLYING, it's a gimme cap with the
letters "FAA" in LARGE RED LETTERS, in DIGITAL it's like those worn by people
going into environmentally hazardous areas:-)

Bob - with too many moderator hats

| <<< Note 6.239 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| I don't see that as "ruined" at all.  PErsonnel shouldn't ever be involved in
| EI notes issues.

	Hmm... let me rephrase that for Joe.


<sarcastic hat on>


	John Covert ruined it for everyone....

<sarcastic hat off>

    
    .240
    
    So you think insinuating that someone "didn't get any" last night is a
    reasonable and appropriate way to treat another person when s/he
    expresses his/her opinion?
    
    You're very free with personal remarks, Ron.  I don't know why I'm
    surprised, but I'd like to think better of you.

| <<< Note 6.241 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| Glen, I want to make it abundantly clear that I DID NOT call my boss a bitch.  

	Ok, that's cool. But guess what, it changes nothing except the person
who you are refering to. But at least we know it's a certain person, and not
just any woman like you stated.

| Now to address the context of the note, I find the term Bitch an obscene term 
| and I never have used it in the conference for general discussion.  

	Jack, if you refer to someone as a bitch, are we not supposed to talk
about it? PUHLEASE Marie! (No, not Glenn or Rose) If a bitch isn't directed at
a certain person, then it is a female dog. So when you are refering to a human,
and are doing so in this file, you are putting it out for general discussion.
But first you say you don't do this, then you put in exceptions:

| I used the term bitch in the Commie Chung string because that happened to be 
| the topic of discussion at the time. The woman above defined herself as a 
| bitch and acted in accordance to how a typical male would see her...an insipid
| bitch!  Sorry, that was the topic of discussion Glen.

	Jack, yet ANOTHER new twist to this. Now you state she thought she was
a bitch. All this from your origional statement of, "if any woman......" Sorry
jack, but it seems like your story keeps changing everytime you add in a note.
While it can be pretty funny to watch the new scenerios appear, it will never
be as funny as when Marcia got hit with the football.... :-)

| So to answer your question, goddamn and bitch are two terms I feel lack 
| dignity and tact. It is no reflection on the person using it other than to 
| make them aware that it is uncharacteristic of being a man or a lady.  

	Then if ya think this way, why use bitch?

| We all know what hot buttons people have and bringing up great caeser's ghost 
| is a strawman at best by the way!

	A strawman Jack? If it's such a strawman, why won't you address the
geez word? How about Gosh? Hmmm.... not such a strawman, is it Jack....



Glen

    
    And furthermore, just because YOU may have a personal vendetta against
    someone, don't assume that *I* must be "blindly supporting" that person, 
    as if I don't have a brain in my head, or any personal experience from 
    which to draw.

    
    joe,  you have understood him in the past...its the same thing.  he
    dislikes you so that in his zeal to discredit you or make you look bad
    he resorts to behavior that is childish and lacks cognizance.  its
    really that simple. 
    
    jeff

>| His next step is to escalate his complaint to his management.
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
							   |
>	But John Covert ruined it for everyone as after his ==wn== problems
>were solved, personnel said they won't be involved in solving notes problems
>anymore.                                                  |
                                                           |
_Corporate_ personnel said they wouldn't.                  |
                                                           |
You have a problem, you take it to your own manager.-------+

/john

    .245
    
    Deb:
    
    Like I said, you don't know even half the story.  I'll discuss it with
    you off-line if you choose.  I won't discuss it publicly.
    
    Ron

    Just a general comment: I don't ever recall a day (in what I will
    admit has been a rather short history) of Soapbox in which so many
    personal conflicts have come to a boil. I'm not even saying whether
    this is a good or a bad thing... it's just an observation.
    
    -b

>That's nice but I was really interested in Jack Martin's opinion,
>if you don't mind.

Then send him private mail asking for it.  When you ask a question in
a Notes Conference, expect to receive replies from anyone who feels
like replying.

/john

My dog, Max, is a real bitch.

My other dog, Geeziz, has a better temperment.

| <<< Note 6.248 by USAT05::BENSON >>>


| joe, you have understood him in the past...its the same thing. he dislikes you
| so that in his zeal to discredit you or make you look bad he resorts to 
| behavior that is childish and lacks cognizance. its really that simple.

	Uh huh..... Jeff, again, you don't know what you speak. To inform him I
was being sarcastic is clearing up his confusion. I would have used the same
method regardless of who asked about it. It was a play on the mods hats being
on and off..... so if you want to speak, do yourself a favor and be sure you
know what you're talking about. You would look less stupid in the process.


Glen

    
    .250
    
    You don't have to discuss anything.  Just answer my question.
    
    Is it appropriate to use personal comments about one's sex life or
    lack of same as an insult?  Yes or no.
                            

>    Is it appropriate to use personal comments about one's sex life or
>    lack of same as an insult?  Yes or no.

Well, it's _explicitly_forbidden_ in policy 6.54.

/john

    Glen:
    
    If said person was in this conference, she would be proud to be called
    a bitch.  She had a bitch mug, a bitch license plate, and a perceived
    bitch attitude in life.  She gave herself the label and wore her label
    with honor.  
    
    Glen, golly and Gee are slangs I'm not even going to discuss...They are
    worthy of the time!
    
    -jack

| <<< Note 6.257 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| If said person was in this conference, she would be proud to be called
| a bitch.  

	Fine and dandy.... but explain why you said, "if any woman" when you
were really only talking about a particular one?

| Glen, golly and Gee are slangs I'm not even going to discuss...They are
| worthy of the time!

	Thanks Jack.... it's nice to know where ya stand... like I said, I
guess it ain't a strawman...

    	re .252
    
    	You had no business responding to that entry.
    
    
    	:^)

    This is why moderators turn dictatorial -- there's so little good
    gotten out of asking people what they want ....
    
    To add a little historical context to the obscenity issue (the what?
    oh, yeah, that):  The general principle was, in order to allow some
    leeway for Soapbox to bend rules in one area, it would be wise to toe
    the line in other areas.  This was during a period when Soapbox, and
    employee noting in general, were starting to attract undesirable
    attention, and Jim Burrows hijacked Soapbox in order to clean it up. 
    The first big change was the insult policy.  Initially, insults were 
    banned.  This quickly became impractical because, for one thing, what 
    constitutes an insult is entirely subjective and, for another thing, 
    many participants didn't want to be protected from insult.  So, even 
    though Digital policy bans insults, they were allowed in Soapbox if the 
    recipient didn't object. 
    
    Obscenities are also banned by Digital policy.  However, while
    obscenity is not entirely objective (as Mr. Benson, among others, has
    amply demonstrated), it is far less subjective than insult.  Since it
    was an easy rule to enforce and kept us on the good side of corporate
    policy, it was enforced.  "Recognizable obscenity" acknowledged that
    words which were visually almost identical to obscene words had the
    same power to offend.  If they didn't, there would be no point in
    constructing them.
    
    For the most part, it is reasonable to use broadcast TV as the basis
    for what constitutes an obscene word; if you can say it on network TV,
    it's not obscene.  One can say both "God" and "damn" on TV; neither
    word is obscene, so the combination cannot be obscene.  (Some people
    might find it offensive.  If so, they should lodge a complaint on the
    grounds of offense, not obscenity.)

>                                                                neither
>    word is obscene, so the combination cannot be obscene.

"Fork" is not obscene.  Neither is "queue."

	Well, according to the tv, we can say penis now with no problems. And
according to Mr. Binder, we can say Dick. 

>>    Thanks Jack.... it's nice to know where ya stand... like I
>>    said, I guess it ain't a strawman...
    
    Okay, it's not a strawman...it's just a waste of disk space!!!! :-)

    
    First of all, Jim Burrows did not hijack Soapbox.
    
    But anyway.  Relax enforcement of the policy on obscenity invites
    a lot of risk for no recognizeable benefit and at high cost.  (I can't
    imagine that it is cheaper to field the inevitable complaints of
    "whine whine, somebody said a bad word delete it, whine whine" over
    the complaints of "whine whine, you deleted my note with a bad word
    in it, whine whine".)
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    >First of all, Jim Burrows did not hijack Soapbox.
    
    That was how he thought of it, although there wasn't much opposition.

re: .-1

If anything, the latter case should be the easier to deal with since
that class of folks isn't likely to be wanting to escalate their
"problem" like the first bunch.

    >a lot of risk for no recognizeable benefit and at high cost.
    
    Which is why I called the introduction of the obscenity discussion a
    sleight-of-hand to distract from the fact that a different policy on
    trashnote consolidation had just been promulgated without so much as a 
    by-your-leave beforehand.  I still think so...even though Di almost
    sorta denied it.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Bill speaketh much wisdom.
    
    
    Mike

  .267  how many times do i have to tell you, dougo?  huh?
	you're projecting some sort of deviousness on us that is
	totally without basis.  if you want to continue to call
	me a liar, well i guess that's your prerogative, but it's
	unappreciated, i can tell you that much.

    and see, she usually isn't so touchy.  
    
    good grief, Di, the issue is totally inconsequential to me, and I
    comment out of amusement at the timing.  I apologize if the joking
    insinuation bothers you.
    
    DougO

    
    Besides, she forgot to put her mod hat on....
    

	any insinuations about my honesty bother me, dougo, even what
	you refer to as "joking" ones.

	especially when it means i have to repeat something three times.

>>     <<< Note 6.227 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>>    If you go back and look at the number of folks saying keep it as is and
>>    the number saying no I wanna be able to deficate anywhere I please,what
>>    is the tally?

	i don't believe anyone has mentioned defecating, but as it stands
	now, approximately 70 percent are suggesting the policy should be
	left as is.

    
    I think Mr. Bill should be panned for violating Corp. policy....
    

    	So how long are the polls open?  Can we vote more than once?

>    well, i do like knowing where i stand, mr. delbalso.  thanks for the
>    clarification.

No problem, and, glad to oblige.

Let me know if and when you cease being an intolerent whiner and we
can discuss reconsidering the matter, if you like.

    I vote for defecating. I couldn't live without it.

And neither could you. Right?

    I leave all the dirty work to Anton.

    
    Hey!  Be nice to Anton.

    it's been quite funny following this from over here
    
    note 209 has a very r. UK o. as a *title* yet remains intact !!
    
    ric

    
    This is getting real old real fast.....worse than......never mind.
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

     Well, it looks like I opened a can of worms with this one.
    
     From the "quality" of this "dicussion" it seems pretty clear that the
    noting population cannot handle the additional freedom and
    responsibility. More's the pity and what a disappointment, but at least
    it wasn't much of a surprise.

    
    
    If it wasn't much of a surprise.......why was it a disappointment????
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    Some of us did try to keep this in perspective Mark.
    I don't think conference policy, which can, on occasion,
    determine weather a conference lives or dies, is not
    a laughing matter.
    
    
    (BTW: I know I spelled weather wrong...It's in memory of today's) :*)
    
    
    Terrie
    

    >I don't think conference policy [...] is not a laughing matter.
    
     Huh!! So you think conference policy is a laughing matter (double
    negatives)?

    
    
    :*)  Oops.......
    
    
    
    Well, I think you know what I meant.   It's hard to think like an adult
    when your wearing red featy pajamas with teddy bears all over them and
    a flap in the back.  :*)
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    
    	hey, your flap's open....;*)
    
    

 >>   From the "quality" of this "dicussion" it seems pretty clear that
 >>   the noting population cannot handle the additional freedom and
 >>   responsibility. More's the pity and what a disappointment, but at
 >>   least it wasn't much of a surprise.
    
No, it was just a simple request...and not unreasonable I might add.  
    
    -JacK

    re: .288
    
    You gonna drive your kids to school dressed like that??
    
    
    BTW...
    
    Glenn R.'s favorite poem...
    
    Roses are red...
    Violets are blue...
    I'm a schiziod...
    
    
    And so am I!!

    To Terrie:
    
    They got flannel up 'n' down 'em
    A little trap door back aroun' 'em
    And cozy little footies on their mind
    
    			from "Pajama People" by Frank Zappa

    
    
    	BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :)
    
    

| <<< Note 6.272 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>



| especially when it means i have to repeat something three times.

	Wot deed u � two ree Pete tha ree tymez?

| <<< Note 6.289 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>



| hey, your flap's open....;*)

	Well Jim.... Terrie is allowed to talk all she wants! 

| <<< Note 6.290 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| No, it was just a simple request...and not unreasonable I might add.

	Guess again Jacko! If we look how far the Lords name thing could go, it
is asking a lot.


Glen

    >No, it was just a simple request...and not unreasonable I might add.
    
     I wasn't talking about your note in particular, as amazing as that
    might sound, but the general tenor of the "discussion" since I asked
    the question.

    Ooooohhhhh
    
    That's Different.......
    
    
    
    
    
    Niver mind!!!

Mods, how about moving the baseball strike stuff out of the Billary topic?

    	Oh, I don't know.
    
    	Clinton ratholed his presidential duties by trying to dabble
    	in the baseball strike.  It only seems appropriate that his
    	soapbox topic is similarly ratholed.   :^)

    I love policy.....

	I luv discussion

    I luv conference

	RE: .301, .303, .304


		Hence, this topic! 

    Oh yes my friend, you are at one with yourself

Mods, how about starting a headcheese topic?

OK - what's the skinny behind mr. bill being panned from the Bell Curve topic?
Conference policy or private terrorism?

    Maybe he'll get chemically castritated before barroll.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    \glenn

    
    
    	I have a feeling it's a self-imposed exile.
    
    

    re: .308
    
     It's not conference policy.

    Bill Licea-Kane was directed to cease writing insults.  As far as I
    know, there is no other reason for him not to participate, in which
    case his statement in that he is not allowed to participate is a lie.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    of course, what to one person is simply a fact, may be to another an
    insult, and thus, and so.
    
    I've been there.  With the same instigator, even.  
    
    DougO

    	Some people are simply too thin-skinned.

    He didn't seem like a thin-skinned type to me. Strange.

That too.

    
    ...huh?

>>    ...huh?

	what's this!?  mz deb misses the joke??  zounds.

    
    It's this blasted headache.  Makes me slower than usual.

| <<< Note 6.314 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| Some people are simply too thin-skinned.


	R we talkin about bad condoms again???

    	We?  
    
    	*WE* all don't have the same affinity for bathroom-humor,
    	diaper-area fixations, and "mile-wides" as some others.

| *WE* all don't have the same affinity for bathroom-humor, 

	you kinda flush those things down the drain, huh?

| diaper-area fixations

	Well, seeing you keep telling everyone I have a fixation on you... glad
to know you think of yourself as a diaper-area.....

| and "mile-wides" as some others.

	Jack Martin is the only mile wide guy I know. Do you know of others?


Glen

    
    <----
    
    Check your local college and see if they have a course you can take...
    
     Something like:
    
     Quips 101 (How to)
    
    NNTTMAYVW
    

    	I rest my case.

| <<< Note 6.324 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| I rest my case.

	I suppose you could do that if you made one first. BTW, if we use your
present logic, all I need is one other person to say the Bible was written by
men for it to be true. I somehow don't think you'll agree to that.... 

    Glen:
    
    The Bible was penned by man but as 2nd Timothy says, it was God
    Breathed.
    
    -Jack

    	Give it a break, Glen.  Do you have to bring that up here too?
    	Sheesh.
    
    	Besides, I rested my case not on what others said, but on what
    	you said.

| <<< Note 6.326 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| The Bible was penned by man but as 2nd Timothy says, it was God Breathed.

	with Paul's opinion...... which he even said was not from God.....

| <<< Note 6.327 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Besides, I rested my case not on what others said, but on what you said.

	Was that Pampers or Depends you use diaper boy....

	please don't talk about all this moronic stuff in here.
	good grief.

>    The Bible was penned by man but as 2nd Timothy says, it was God
>    Breathed.

A distant ancestor of Berkeley, no doubt.

    
     Mr. Bill's notes without acerbity would be like a day without
    sunshine.  Count me as a solid vote for continuing to allow
    pugnacious entries.  There are enough fluff conferences now.
    
     bb

	as the doctah said, this business with mr. bill has nothing to
	do conference policy as carried out by the mods.  just so there's
	no question in your mind about that, bob.

I hain't seen so much moderation in one morning in all my born days!

Didn't there used to be a "repository" note?

>>Didn't there used to be a "repository" note?

	in this iteration of the 'box?

I dunno.  Maybe it was in the last one.  I just thought 416.23 should be
preserved for posterity.

       For the most part, I don't like the idea of anonymous notes in
       Soapbox; it goes against the grain.
       
       If someone has a need to get information or ask a question
       anonymously, conferences exist where such services are available.
       Soapbox exists essentially as a place where opinions can be
       exchanged; except in unusual cases, that ought not be done
       anonymously.  (The recent base anonymous base note might be one
       such unusual case where anonymity is appropriate, though that's
       far from certain.) 
       
       Mod Squad take heed.
       
       --Mr Topaz

As long as the author of any note can be identified as required by P&P, I don't
care how it gets there.

On the other hand, sometimes I wish my username was 'Zainsley', so I don't
show up all the time as the result of a 'SHOW CONF' command when people go
looking for the moderator of a conference.

Bob

Bob, the mod who shows up in SHOW CONF is the one who last did something
moderatorial.

Are you trying to tell me something, Gerald? :-)

    
    	RE: Bob
    
    	Well, I think he just answered your question as to why the noters
    	take issue with you as primary moderator.  8^)
    
    	But you WILL show up regularly as the 1st mod in a SHOW MOD ...
    	unless you change your membership name to "Robert".  That should
    	move you down the list some.
    

    
      Ah, yes, "top gun" amongst mods - the pinnacle of Bonaparte
     wannabes.  Um - what august criteria might be used in choosing...
    
      bb

    >For the most part, I don't like the idea of anonymous notes in
    >Soapbox; it goes against the grain.
    
     For the most part, I agree with you. I don't intend for this to become
    a common practice. In this particular case, there seemed to be merit to
    the request.

Anybody feel like changing the conference banner?  You know, change
being the spice of life and all that...

Chris.

 .346  i'd _love_ to, but guess it's up the grand poo-bah, mr. harney.
       

    
    
    I remember what it used to be when John got a bug up his arse, then
    someone gave some guff about it being to crass and John changed to
    something kinder and gentler. :')
    
    
    Hey John, still got the new PN? 
    
    
    Mike

What are the obscenities that cause a note to get deleted?  I see that a note
that used the feces word was just deleted, and that surprised me.

    They probably told us already, but then they had to delete
    the note.
    
    Chris

expletive for faeces.

Chris.

    The poo poo word!

    <--- I fell of my chair ! :*\ {snicker}

And I thought the notes with the number 2 word were disappearing because of
some coprophagous software.

/john

       The new conf message stinks

    <--- In other words, you really like it and are very happy and joyful about
    things in general.

| <<< Note 6.355 by SNOFS1::DAVISM "Happy Harry Hard On" >>>

| <--- I fell of my chair ! :*\ {snicker}

	Martin, how does one fall of a chair????

    <----
    
    Falling of a chair.
    
    Well ya kinda, lean fowards in tears of laughter and losing after
    losing one's concentration for a couple of seconds, it's wooops 
    and over you go. Splat on the floor and still laughing.
    
    I think I was refering to it being a bad joke or sumfing.

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 4.45                     Deleted Note History                      45 of 45
ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney"                         1 line  15-JUN-1995 14:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   461.38 deleted for insult

>>                       -< That's an understatement 8^) >-

  okay, how 'bout "wiped from the face of the Earth for insult"?

    
    Well, I was thinking more along the lines of "deleted for
    rabid-red-faced-foaming-at-the-mouth-coronary-inducing noting" 8^).

    
      So is yer recognition algorithm as good fer I's as O's ?  
    
      Minds like a steel trap, our Napoleon wannabes.
    
      bb

	we occasionally receive requests to delete things from
	insultees, my darling mr. braucher.

    Who was it we agreed to pick on, Di?

>    Well, I was thinking more along the lines of "deleted for
>    rabid-red-faced-foaming-at-the-mouth-coronary-inducing noting" 8^).

And wouldn't you know it - I missed it.

    It was pretty much run-of-the-mill frothing, nothing special.

    
    Shhhhh....the mods are still asleep.  At least let them get a few more
    hours of rest before they have to come in and clean up the sandbox
    again.
    

	What happened to .369 & .370?

    
    deleted for RO, no doubt.   :^)
    

    
      I would like to register a protest, which I know will be ignored,
     of this morning's merger of my note (originally 478) into the First
     Amendment Issues Topic.  Technically, if the proposed amendment does
     not pass, this might be reasonable, but if it passes, it would be
     Amendment XXVII, not I.  Thus the ACT of moving the note could be
     interpreted as an editorial comment by the moderators by a cowardly
     means, and it changes the nature of the discussion.  Classifying
     things is NEVER objective - it reveals the prejudices of the
     classifier.  This morning you leave the absurd Monte Hall note of
     edp as a topic worthy of separate interest, but denigrate the US
     flag amendment by your merger.  I would suspect you Bonapartistes
     of subtle debate manipulation if I didn't know already not to expect
     careful consideration from folks who can'r R an O properly...
    
      bb

  .374  First of all, I resent your insinuations.  Secondly, the title
	of 322 has been modified to be generic.  If that's not good
	enough for you, too bad.  There was already an entire discussion
	about the issue of flag burning.  There's no need to have two
	separate topics.  

    Ooops...guess I picked the wrong time to send you the Carly Simon 
    remarks!

     results of putting 6.374 through a whine filter:
    
    =====
    I would like to register a protest of this morning's merger of my note
    (originally 478) into the First Amendment Issues Topic.  Technically, 
    if the proposed amendment does not pass, this might be reasonable, but
    if it passes, it would be Amendment XXVII, not I. Thus the ACT of
    moving the note could be interpreted as an editorial comment by the 
    moderators and it changes the nature of the discussion.  Classifying
    things is NEVER objective - it reveals the prejudices of the classifier.
    
    =====
    
     How, bb, does the nature of the discussion change by merging your new
    topic with the already existing discussion? Because you don't get to
    set the title for the whole string? What evidence do you have to
    support your contention that the nature of the discussion will be
    affected by the merger? If your argument has merit, then you should put
    it forth without the chronic whining and acerbic commentary relative to
    the moderating of this conference. An argument based upon reason is far
    more likely to have the effect of catalyzing change than is adolescent
    pissing & moaning.
    
     We happen to be reasonable, intelligent people, which you might
    realize if you dropped the napoleon wannabe/bonapartist mantra.
    
      The Doctah

    
      re, .375 - I'm sorry if was unclear.  I meant to say, I know better
       than to suppose that you, Lady Di, of all people, would stoop to
       trivializing any 'BOX argument by relegating it to rat-hole status.
    
       Now I understand that there is great danger to discussion in having
       two discussions of the same thing in separate topics, particularly
       when folks start referring to each other's notes as .xxx reply.  No
       doubt you are performing your duties as well as you can under trying
       circumstances.  But do you see my point about arbitrary mergers ?
       Which leads me to :
    
      re, .377 - If you assume powers to yourself which are not available
       to others, you corrupt yourself.  There's no way out of it.  Mostly,
       the BOX is very fair, and more tasteful than, say, the Internet.
       If you can't take moderate ribbing, then either abstain from using
       your privs arrogantly, or resign.  I do not claim you guys did great
       violence to the discussion.  But it is important to realize the
       danger in arbitrary merging of topics.  Presumably, I made a
       judgement.  A judgement that, given the devotion of considerable
       energy by both houses of the US Congress to this subject, it
       warranted separate consideration.  You overruled me, as is within
       your power but not mine.  Without notice, without explanation.
       Who did this before in history ?  Hint : he rode a white horse.
    
       bb
       

    .378
    
    Get off it.

	>>But do you see my point about arbitrary mergers ?

	And what makes you think it was, or ever is, "arbitrary"?
	How insulting.
	

    
    I think I'll start a topic on the Second Amendment.  We don't have
    a topic on that, yet.
    

I move that we try to get Patrick back to re-title all notes in the conference.
Then when he leaves we'll remember what a good thing it is not to have him.

    Re: .374
    
    Soapbox has a long-standing policy of merging identical topics.  Sorry
    to burst your bubble, but there's nothing special about your case.

	You mean our bb was actually the, "Bubble Boy"?????  :-)

The advertising jingles in the Movies topic should be moved.

    
    
    Along with every rathole in here?????
    

    
    Andy...please..."rodent warren", if you don't mind.
    

  .385  gee, too bad you didn't think of that sooner, eh?

Topaz started it {whine}.

       I thought you were wordplaying on Movie.

  see, gerald, it's all your fault.  for your punishment, breakfast
  will consist of 1 blueberry bagel and a large Coke, for the next week.

    
    
    For him or you???
    

<Voice_of_utter_desolation>: But, we don't HAVE an Advertising Jingles topic!

Oh, stop your whining.

I'm not sure which note this belongs in. I think here is appropriate.

The noter who signs as Mr. Bill(Licea-kane) I find offensive. His constant
use of terms such as "nutters" "whackos" "gun-nuts" "liars" and others
are both offensive and in my opinion, harrassing to those who don't
happen to believe every word the gov't says. When Jim sadin posts an
article quoting someone(such as a military General) as having said
"this looks like xyz" Mr Bill, instead of presenting facts either why 
it doesn't look like xyz or facts showing that the general is niether
a general nor an expert in xxx instead attacks Jim sadin as if he were either
certifiable or incompetent.

On Rare occasions he has offered "facts" from Time magazine as if that was 
the stone-tablets from Moses visit to the mount when in actuality Time
has no more (or less) credence than any other publication quoted.

I wish to formally request that Licea-Kane stop his personal attacks
on noters in this conference and on the NRA, Conservatives, Republicans,
and all others that he slanders with terms such as "nutter".

Amos

    I will generalize my editorial comments so as not to just pick on Mr.
    Bill.  I fear I must also use the L word.
    
    There are liberals  and there are boot licking liberals.  Liberals are
    simply misinformed well intentioned people.  Boot licking liberals are
    those with an agenda and clearly know the dangers of, for instance,
    Lyndon Johnsons policies and yet continue to lobby for more failure. 
    When you try to establish dialog with a boot licker, you will find
    after thirty seconds that substance goes out the window and insults and
    fearmongering prevail.  And actually, there is little hope for these
    types.  What they really need is to get mugged, or have their children
    attend one of these government socially engineered ghastly places
    called inner city public schools to really get a flavor of the legacy
    they are leaving their children.
    
    One thing that you can be assured of; it is NEVER their fault.  It is
    always somebody elses!
    
    -Jack

	.395  charming, but what does that have to do with conference
	      policy?

Lyndon Johnson's policies?  So was Gen. Westmoreland a boot-licking liberal?

    Di, since when does a reply have to have anything to do with the topic? 
    It was definitely worth a chuckle IMO so therefore it has value.  

    
    In other words, you formally request that I be censored.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      So Mr Bill is offensive - good.  I like offensive notes, the more
     the better.
    
      As for grovelling to the Bonapartistes, it gives me the shivers.
    
      Amos, take it like a man.
    
      bb

    I saw that muppetman, oh yes, I surely did!

 :-)

       re .394:
       
       > I wish to formally request that Licea-Kane stop his personal
       > attacks on noters in this conference and on the NRA,
       > Conservatives, Republicans, and all others that he slanders...
       
       Did you also wish to formally request that the right-wing mob that
       makes so much noise in Soapbox stop their personal attacks on
       noters in this conference and on the Clinton Administration,
       social liberals, Democrats and all others that they slander?
       
       Or does that concept not quite fit in with your politics.
       
       --Mr Topaz
       

            >   Did you also wish to formally request that the right-wing mob that
    >   makes so much noise in Soapbox stop their personal attacks on
    >   noters in this conference and on the Clinto Administration,
    >   social liberals, Democrats and all others that they slander?
       
    >   Or does that concept not quite fit in with your politics

    since mr. topaz and mr. bill are virtually indistinguishable
    in their calumny and derision, i will address my comments
    to both:

    while the temptation is nearly overwhelming to invoke various
    rectal metaphors when addressing you, in the spirit of valuing
    differences, i exercise restraint. all that amos is asking
    you to do is use a modicum of social decency. he is also,
    as i understand it, appealing to the management (so to speak)
    asking them to assist you in your quest for social grace.

    -b

    <<< Note 6.394 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

Yes, I agree that referring to people as "nutters" and "liars" is 
offensive, but since most of these notes are content-free, what harm 
does it do?  There's a lot of "sound and "fury", but little else.

This is SOAPBOX.  Mr. Bill does not have to be polite.
We don't have to reply to his notes, either.

Kevin.

>>     <<< Note 6.404 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>
>>    asking them to assist you in your quest for social grace.

	what's this!?  Don and Bill, you're on a quest for social
	grace??  aagagag.  i didn't know that.  ;>

    <<< Note 6.400 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>   In other words, you formally request that I be censored.

I didn't read that at all.  It appeared to be a request to turn down the
inflammatory rhetoric.

    
    
    Amos!!
    
    You lie!!!!!!!
    
    WHY DO YOU LIE??????????
    

    
    
    :*) heeheehee
    

    I for one would like to start the Mr. Bill fan club. I think that what
    he has to say is offensive, repulsive, hateful, annoying,
    objectionable, disagreeable, odious, displeasing, repugnant, revolting
    and obnoxious, and I LOVE IT. These are all the reasons that I enjoy
    being a boxer. If you can't take it go to ::FRIENDS, which by the way I
    enjoy also and participate in daily. It is a fun and nice place to
    visit. It is definitely not SOAPBOX.
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 6.394 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>


| On Rare occasions he has offered "facts" from Time magazine as if that was
| the stone-tablets from Moses visit to the mount when in actuality Time has 
| no more (or less) credence than any other publication quoted.

	Amos, I have to admit, the Moses thing had me rolling! :-)

| I wish to formally request that Licea-Kane stop his personal attacks on noters
| in this conference and on the NRA, Conservatives, Republicans, and all others 
| that he slanders with terms such as "nutter".

	Amos, will you also ask the mods to make sure that everyone that calls
President Clinton by anything else but his real name, will stop doing that? :-)

    If we turned down the inflammatory rhetoric we would then have Soapbox
    Lite, kind of like the WSSH of notesfiles and the would be something to
    make me GAK today.  Inflammatory rhetoric knows no social, economic or
    political bounds and therefore is the perfect medium to cultivate
    Boximecium Notii, a tiny, single celled flagellate that keeps
    running itself into the sides of the cyber-petri dish over and over
    and over again.    

| <<< Note 6.396 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| .395  charming, but what does that have to do with conference policy?


	Di.... he is only been back from vacation for 2 days.... I don't think
he's bact to any realization yet.... :-0

    Go Away You Piss Ant!!!!
    
    Actually, I missed you too!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    Mr. Bill, don't leave us.  You're always good for a laugh!
    
    -Jack

    Well, FWIW, I don't see Amos as asking that Mr. Bill be censored, but
    that he tone down the name calling without substance.  I agree with his
    perception, for the most part.
    
    However, this is soapbox, and I expect to be labelled
    a nutter and a zealot and <instert label of your choice>.  I've
    actually grown sort of fond of the "nutter" label (and am becoming
    increasingly fond of the "right wing extremist" label, as well), and
    wear it with pride these days- which sort of takes the derogatory
    element out of the label.  8^)  
    
    This is all part of the box's...uhm..charm, and I've grown fond of it
    being this way.  
    
    I would like to see some substance along with the "liar liar!"
    rhetoric, however, it would make for more interesting reading.
    But if none is provided, I can always ignore the baseless name calling,
    and all notes from any author who consistently resorts to such tactless
    posts without substance.
    
    FWIW, I don't mind a few zingers, as long as there is some substance in
    the note.
    
    
    
    -steve

    Not enough nutters around here.
    
    Glenn/Deirdre/Pamela/Franny/Ned/Dierdre/Anton/Sean/Alice/Jimi/Pauline/Rex/
    Nathan/Melanie/Ursula/Hildegard/Nigel/Boutros Boutros/Leslie/Shareena/
    Onondaga/Vidiator/Iris/Shirley Wood/Nel
    

    
    At first I wasn't going to bother...but then I noticed the last word
    in the title of this topic, so...some thoughts:
    
    1. Having been on the receiving end of unprovoked insults and 
       offensive rhetoric from BOTH Amos and Mr. Bill, I find it odd
       that one or the other might make such a complaint.
    
    2. While Amos has not specifically asked for Moderator intervention,
       the title line of .394 hints that such a request will be forthcoming
       if Mr. Bill doesn't comply, rendering Amos' p_name a little ironic.
    
    3. While I haven't been overly engrossed in the Waco/Ruby Ridge 
       discussion, it seems to me that everyone on the right-hand-side
       of the debate is missing Mr. Bill's point: that people are prepared
       to unquestioningly propogate unsubstantiated rumours, and over time
       the constant repetition of these rumours lead people to forget where
       the information even came from in the first place, much less whether
       or not the stuff is true.  People are believing it because they want
       to believe it, and Bill HAS provided examples of where this has
       happenned.  It's not the really the honesty of individuals he's
       questioning, it's the intellectual integrity, the level of 
       intellectual vigilance.  And he's right.  The `TIME vs. NRA' issue
       last week was a prime example; the Right questions TIME's bias, but
       not the bias of the NRA, which was, quite frankly, exposed by TIME.
       Everybody howled about TIME's integrity; who howled about the NRA's
       integrity?  In the face of this `selective' outrayge, Mr. Bill's
       frustration is understandable.
    
    4. I, too, would like to see the inflammatory rhetoric taken down a few
       notches, but WTF cares what I think?  The thing is, we've all seen
       the effects of this sort of synsytyvyty in other conferences, and if
       it comes to that here, that would definitely be a TTHT&FAT.
    
    jc
      

    Well, I'm disappointed that this type of finger pointing is going on
    again. What usually happens is the mods start to worry about Digital
    policy and hassles with HR followed by write lock fever.

    Then person A leaves because person C (Don't want to involve Di here) is
    still here. Then a whole bunch of people go away with there collective
    marbles for some sort of ritualistic hiatus which I believe is a form
    of fasting and prayer. To what end I don't know.

    So, here we go again. 8^/

My first reaction to the note by ::HAMBURGER was "amen", but in retrospect, 
I think the idea that this is "da box" (and not ::FRIENDS (sweetness and
candies thankyou :-) )) is correct. ::LICEA_KANE's tone is so repugnant and
insulting, it has become an unpleasant experience reading his notes, but:

a) I think he does a disservice to mostly himself, and

b) The box is what it is, because of the spice!!!

Besides, in spite of the broken record mantras, he apparently does a good deal
of homework, even if he believes only one side of the lies. While I share a 
good deal of the proclivities of the crowd that distrusts the govt, I must
admit that some of his posts have reminded me that there are indeed two sides
to most stories. I would like to know what really happened on Ruby Ridge, and
I agree that sources such as "Idaho Survivalist" are probably not the world's
most reliable, unbiased sources (not that Time-Warner is either, or certain
agents doing the CYA under oath).

So, ::HAMBURGER, I sympathize with you on a gut level, but if he wants to be 
rude, I would say let him.

Nutters!! Lies!!
Storm Waffen!! Conspiratori!!
Lies!! Nutte<CLICK>

Nutters!! Lies!!
Storm Waffen!! Conspiratori!!
Lies!! Nutte<CLICK>

Nutters!! Lies!!
Storm Waffen!! Conspiratori!!
Lies!! Nutte<CLICK>

... etc :-}

    Wot I'm wondering about Amos "Freedom Counts" H.'s .395 is howcum why
    he forgot that this is, as others have said, "da 'Box," and hyperbole
    is what is expected, nay almost ritualistically *required* in here.
    
    Ya want pablum, ya go elsewhere.  That's my take.
    

re: .410, Tom

>				go to ::FRIENDS, which by the way I
>    enjoy also and participate in daily. It is a fun and nice place to
>    visit.

Doesn't this belong in 501 or TTMYGGT?

Ya don't read wimminnotes, too, do ya?

    >Ya don't read wimminnotes, too, do ya?
    
    NO!!!! Would be much too frightening of an experience for me. I leave
    that to Steve L. and Joe O. whom I understand are regularly raped in that
    that file!
    
    ...Tom

    .422> Steve L. and Joe O. whom I understand are regularly raped in that
          that file!
    
    Bonehead play.  Bigtime.  Poor Steve, poor Joe.  Poor metaphor!!!!!
    
    Bonehead!!!
    

    As a certified wingnut (leftwing or rightwing? only the nut knows,)
    I just have to reply to .417, part 3.
    
    That's the most...
    
    
    insightful observation into bill's rantings! Hey, looks like bill
    really has a good point here. Of course, I didn't notice it before.
    Makes a lot of sense to me, tho.

    
    I would have agreed with the sentiments expressed in .394 if the note
    had not appeared in this topic, and if it had not included the
    disturbing phrases "Mods please note" and "I formally request," which
    seem to indicate that personnel or moderatorial action may be
    forthcoming (not that I think that our fine moderators would 
    engage in such blatant and pathetic censorship.)
    
    I have criticized Mr. Bill on several different occaisons for his 
    insulting and contemptuous invective toward certain noters and certain
    points of view.  He has ignored me and continued his behavior, and
    thank God he is free to do so.  Forcing his views underground just
    because some find them unpalatable is not the solution to any problem.
    
    How ironic that Amos, whose personal name proclaims that "FREEDOM
    COUNTS," wants to deny someone the basic and essential freedom to
    speaks as he chooses.  A free clue:  freedom extended only to those
    whom you agree with is no kind of freedom at all.  It is intellectual
    slavery of the worst kind.
    
    Mr. Bill's insults are no worse than those the right-wingers directed
    at George Maiewski, and yet Amos requested no moderatorial actions 
    back then.  In fact, he participated in the mud-slinging.
    
    While I disagree with Mr. Bill, and resent his favored mode of
    expression, to censor him would go against the cherished 'Box
    tenets of free speech, free thought, and the requirement of a thick skin.  
    The great thing about Soapbox is that it gives one enough rope to hang 
    oneself, because there are few rules stating what you can or can't say.  
    People can be judged by how they act here because there are no censors
    forcing them to play nice.  If they play nice, it is because they want to
    play nice.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    
    

                                  Wot 'e said.

    
    
    RE: .411 Glen, he was slick willie long before he became pres.

    To all you guys bothered by mr. bill's steadfast defense of all things
    government, don't worry. He'll do a 180 after the next election.

    <<< Note 6.417 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>

Once again, jc is a diamond of lucidity in the squabbling rough.

Just as Mr. Bill brings fierce individuality and idealogical fire into a 
forum that is supposed to *honor* those traights but more often decends into 
demagogery, gang-banging, and posturing - which makes the silliness we 
often partake in seem refreshing. Tho nowhere near as refreshing as 
entries from the likes of Mr. Bill.       

    Come again?

re .415:

>    However, this is soapbox, and I expect to be labelled
>    a nutter and a zealot and <instert label of your choice>.

Poor speller?

>    <<< Note 6.400 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>           -< You all please continue to cross post Stormfront.... >-

accusing me of posting from or reading stormfront equates to calling me a nazi
I do not like it. Unless you can prove I posted from there knock it off.

    
>    In other words, you formally request that I be censored.
    
 >   								-mr. bill

No I do not want censorship. I would appreciate if you would stop the 
hate-speech you engage in against noters in this file. 

Amos

|   To all you guys bothered by mr. bill's steadfast defense of all things
|   government, don't worry. He'll do a 180 after the next election.
    
    Defend Ronald Reagan against charges that he intentionally sent
    KAL007 into soviet airspace?  You betcha.
    
    Defend USSR against charges that they knowingly shot down a passenger
    airplane?  You betcha.
    
    Defend the Iranian goverment against charges that they intentionally
    sent an Airbus full of dead people with missles strapped to the wings
    to attack a warship?  You betcha.
    
    Defend the US against charges that we knowningly shot down a passenger
    airplane?  You betcha.
    
    Defend George Bush etc against charges about "an October surprise"?
    You betcha.
    
    Defend George Bush's BATF/US Marshals/FBI against obscene charges about
    Ruby Ridge?  You betcha.
    
    Defend Bill Clinton/Lloyd Bentsen/Janet Reno's [nntm-crowd, what's the
    right way to do that?] BATF/FBI against wacky charges about Waco?
    You betcha.
    
    Defend Bill Clinton etc against charges that the Feds blew up a building
    in OKC?  You betcha.
    
    Defend the millions who died in the holocaust against charges that
    it didn't take place?  You betcha.
    
    Defend good and bad people who get smeared by the most vile attacks (such
    as the recent "he's a Jew" crossposting) from the ugliest people on the
    planet?  You betcha.
    
    
    Truth matters to me.
    Your mileage may vary.  
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .417
    
    I have nothing to add.
    
    								-mr. bill

> <<< Note 6.408 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

    
    
>    Amos!!
    
>    You lie!!!!!!!
    
>    WHY DO YOU LIE??????????
 
Where did I lie? has not Mr. Bill refered to Jim sadin and others as "nutters,
Whackos, and liars"?   

    
    
     I think Billy should be left alone and allowed to continue his
    rantings. 
    
      After all, we should support free speech everywhere, so that even
    "nutters", "fruitcakes" "reicht-wyngers" be allowed to show themselves
    for what they really are and stand for... this way, it's all out inthe
    light of day and open to all for richly deserved contempt... 
    
     So.. Billy's replies here fall into the same category for me as the
    above... let him rant and rave... I kinda like knowing who I'm dealing
    with and why...

    Re .433:
    
    > Truth matters to me.
    
    But not to the point of properly confirming that a single note actually
    contains the phrase it was said to contain.  Your notes in this
    conference over the past months have been totally worthless; they
    contained absolutely no information that anybody could trust without
    checking, but they have contained plenty of insults.
    
    Truth doesn't matter to you.  You didn't bother to check properly for
    the truth before lying about a phrase I used.  You didn't bother to get
    the truth before repeating that lie.  Until you learn that you do NOT
    have any lock on the truth, you can contribute nothing to this
    conference.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Although I've been a bit concerned of late because I find myself
    agreeing with Mr. Bill on certain issues, (insert confused look here),
    I still feel he has the right to express his opinions.
    
    I wouldn't change Mr. Bill's methods of expression either, I've never
    interpreted them as personal attacks.
    
    

    >Defend George Bush etc against charges about "an October surprise"?
    >You betcha.
    
     You defended him against these allegations? Must have been the least
    spirited defense you've ever put on...
    
    >Truth matters to me.
    
     Is this the imagined truth that you and only you are privy to, or a
    more generic form available to the great unwashed? When the gummint and
    an individual of questionable reputation differ in their presentation
    of the facts, how do you determine "the truth"? Gummint is always
    right? Gummint is right except when minorities are involved? See which
    way most boxers are leaning and adopt the opposite tack? What's the
    algorithm, bill?
    
     Problem with bill is Topazesque delusions of moral, intellectual and
    ethical superiority aside, he's right just often enough that he can't
    be dismissed...

    >I wouldn't change Mr. Bill's methods of expression either, I've never
    >interpreted them as personal attacks.
    
     The beauty of bill's speech is that when people employ similar methods
    to describe groups of people they don't like, bill's howls of protest
    can be deafening. Accusations of bigotry pour forth as if from a
    fountain. It's part of the hypocrisy that makes the box go round, I
    guess. Maligning one's opponents based on generalizations,
    misunderstandings and flawed reasoning is a hallmark of the box, and
    bill is no less guilty of this (except in his own self-forgiving mind)
    than the worst of the reich wingers. It's this marvelously textured
    juxtaposition of words and deeds that make this collective folly so
    damned entertaining.

>>             <<< Note 6.439 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "the heat is on" >>>
>>See which
>>way most boxers are leaning and adopt the opposite tack? 

	that's about as insulting as it gets, imo.  i do believe
	our mr. bill is sincere, if nothing else.

    
    re: .441
    
    As sincere as many "nutters" out there?
    

    >that's about as insulting as it gets, imo.
    
     I think it's a helluva lot less insulting than "nutters" and a host of
    other things he's said, but, then, I know the intent behind the words.
    Frankly, sometimes I'd swear that's just exactly what he's done.

    
>>    As sincere as many "nutters" out there?

    yes.
    

    
>>     I think it's a helluva lot less insulting than "nutters" and a host of
>>     other things he's said...

	Such hyperbole might imply that the passion is misguided, but
	not merely invented.

    
    re: .444
    
    
    
    Then we have "two peas in a pod"... sort of...
    

    
>>    Then we have "two peas in a pod"... sort of...

    So what?  I'm not questioning the sincerity of any 'boxers,
    liberal or conservative.  Mark was posing insincerity on
    mr. bill's part as a possibility.
    

"Nutters" seems to me to be a pretty mild insult.  I wonder why people are
getting so incensed over it.

    
    re: .447
    
    Di,
    
    My comments were not related to the Doctah's opining (or yours)...
    
    Mine were more of equating Billy with his "nutters", and trying to show
    that there's really not much difference between the two camps...

    I didn't think "indians" was an insult at all, but that didn't keep
    people from getting all worked up about it.

    Ya, but did native americans get worked up about it or other types?
    
    Haven't met an indian yet that cared. (And, yes, I've lived with them.)

    
>>    My comments were not related to the Doctah's opining (or yours)...

	sorry.  when you respond to one of my notes, i assume your response
	is related to what i said.  thanks for the explanation.

    re: .452
    
    > when you respond to one of my notes, i assume your response is
    >related to what i said.
    
    
     This, after all, is the 'box Di... when did that ever matter to anyone
    in here??
    

    MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
    >>Liberals are simply misinformed well intentioned people.
    
     Why do I find this slander more offensive than a "Bleeding Hart
    Liberal" slander ? Because it tries to present the attitude as a
    reasoned well thought out statement. In fact it is just a baseless
    insult. I prefer the bumber sticker insults, because they at least are
    honest in their intent and presentation. To dress up the insult like a
    fact is worse in my opinion.
    
    							Derek.

|   >Defend George Bush etc against charges about "an October surprise"?
|   >You betcha.
|    
|   You defended him against these allegations? Must have been the least
|   spirited defense you've ever put on...
    
    Yup, I did.  So did others.  Spirited defense?  As spirited as needed.
    Oddly, back then there were just a few people who believed in this massive
    conspiracy.  The same few people showed up being interviewed by the
    same "talk radio" hosts over and over again.  And back then, 'boxers
    very infrequently cross-posted "I found this nutty stuff on the
    Internet, don't know if it's true or not."
    
    -----
    
    How is it that "Trust No One" has morphed into "Trust No One Unless
    Somebody Posted To The Net"?
    
    It's almost frightening that something can be posted to Stormfront,
    laundered through a few newsgroups, pop up other web pages or BBSs,
    then get posted here.  And this happens too damn *quickly*!
    
    
    The nutters are *out* *there*.  They are using the Internet.  They are
    using shortwave.  They are using faxes.  They have motive to lie, and
    they *are* lieing.
    
    
    This shouldn't be a revelation to anyone, but sometimes people seem
    surprised that there are people (who don't work for the government)
    out there who willingly and intentionally spread disinformation.
    
    Some well meaning boxers repost this crap here.  I think they are
    very wrong to do so.
    
    The nutters are the ones creating the lies.  Foolish people repeat
    them.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .455
    
    So, only the nutters lie?   C'mon Mr. Bill, I think you are being a bit
    too exclusive in your allegations.  The nutters (however you define the
    term) do not have a lock of dishonesty.
    
    
    -steve

    
    
>    The nutters are the ones creating the lies.  Foolish people repeat
>    them.
    
    	Oh stop fer gawds sake! If you see a lie, REFUTE IT! Post facts,
    refute the lies, but don't call people foolish for posting a view that
    you don't happen to agree with or that doesn't match what TIME or Janet
    Reno says. Is looking at all sides of an issue wrong? Is posting a
    questionable note wrong if you're looking for other opinions? Post
    facts but stop your insulting, childish, self-serving talk and just get on
    with it....
    
    
    	jim 

mr.bill wrote:

>    This shouldn't be a revelation to anyone, but sometimes people seem
>    surprised that there are people (who don't work for the government)
>    out there who willingly and intentionally spread disinformation.

Mr. Leech somehow interpreted this as:
    
>    So, only the nutters lie?

   <<< Note 6.458 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

> mr.bill wrote:
> 
>>    This shouldn't be a revelation to anyone, but sometimes people seem
>>    surprised that there are people (who don't work for the government)
>>    out there who willingly and intentionally spread disinformation.
>
> Mr. Leech somehow interpreted this as:
>    
>>    So, only the nutters lie?

No, I imagine what got him was this statement:

    The nutters are the ones creating the lies.

    
    
    re: .458
    
    	that's quite a leap of logic Gerald. I believe the quote from Mr.
    Bill that Mr. Leech was referring to was:
    
    	"The nutters are the ones spreading the lies."
    
    jim

    
    Bill, you make a mistaken assumption that, just because someone posts
    something, they believe what is said.  This is not true, it's putting
    something out there to let others see what other people are saying
    and/or thinking.
    
    Mike

Yeah but... I took the mr.bill remark that I quoted to mean that neither
gummint nor nutters can be trusted.

    Don't trust anyone over thirty!
    
    Wait..never mind. Out of synch by about 25-30 years. 
    
    (Or am I?)

    Jim Sadin -         
    
|   I believe the quote from Mr. Bill that Mr. Leech was referring to was:
|    
|    	"The nutters are the ones spreading the lies."
    
    I will correct you RIGHT NOW!
    
    I said:
    
    "The nutters are the ones ****CREATING**** [emphasis added now] the lies."
    
    Can you see the difference?  Can any of you see the difference?
    Or am I writing to a twisty little audience, all alike?
    
    							    	-mr. bill

    
    
    twisty little audience?  :')
    

    all alike.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Aw, c'mon...ADVENTURE isn't >that< old!

    <<< Note 6.455 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    The nutters are *out* *there*.  They are using the Internet.  They are
>    using shortwave.  They are using faxes.  They have motive to lie, and
>    they *are* lieing.
    
    	They are probably "lieing" under your bed too.  And check
    	the closets.  And lock your windows.  They are out there,
    	"lieing" in wait to pounce on your unprotected back when
    	you least expect it.  Maybe it's a good thing you are always
    	expecting it.  Then they can't get you.

    
    
    re: mr. Bill
    
    	I apologize for the misquote. I do believe tho', that in previous
    notes you have said/implied that the "nutters" are creating AND
    spreading lies. You may argue semantics all day long, but it doesn't
    change your basic message...
    
    
    	jim

        <<< Note 6.422 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>
    
>    NO!!!! Would be much too frightening of an experience for me. I leave
>    that to Steve L. and Joe O. whom I understand are regularly raped in that
>    that file!
    
    	Never read WN.  Never wrote in it.  It's not in my notes
    	directory.
    
    	Are you suggesting that I'm being raped behind my back?  
    
    	I'd be honored if I were viewed as such a threat to them that
    	they would have to rape me in effigy there!   :^)
    
    	Can a person be raped without knowing it?

    
    Neither are slide rules.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	Yeah, but I know adventure.....:)
    
    

    >   I'd be honored if I were viewed 
    
    at all.  I don't think you've ever been mentioned there.
    
    > as such a threat to them 
    
    don't kid yourself
    
    > that they would have to rape me in effigy there!   :^)
    
    Believe me, if there's one place on the net where it wouldn't enter
    the picture, its there, where people of decency and intelligence know
    better than to create or continue jokes about rape.
    
    DougO

    
    	So speaketh the sermon on the mount!
    
    :)

    
    
    This entire string is a pathetic joke.  It's a useless arguement
    over stupidity that noone is ever going to win.
    
    
    Just my opinion of course, which I'm sure doesn't mean squat around
    here, but I'll voice it anyways, because that's what ::SOAPBOX is all
    about, isn't it?
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    
    	>    This entire string is a pathetic joke.  It's a useless arguement
>    over stupidity that noone is ever going to win.
    
    	Congrats! You've just described most of the topics in this
    file...:)
    
    
    jim

    Derek:
    
    I'm sorry you are insulted and I agree that I do generalize quite a
    bit.  No, I'm afraid in most cases I'm right.  Consider the
    following...
    
    - The main problem of the inner city is a lack of jobs.  More jobs
      equal less crime.
    
    - If you remove guns from people then crime will deter and less people
      will be injured.
    
    - AFDC is a great tool to win the war against poverty.
    
    - Higher taxes will increase revenues in the Treasury and the middle
      class will finally be in an equitable position with the rich.
    
    - I am from the government and I'm here to help you.
    
    - More government programs will create more jobs on the Federal
      payroll.  This will enhance the economy.
    
    - The main purpose of guns to civilians is for hunting and other sports 
      activities.
    
    - Multiculturalism is goodness.  It reveals that there is something
      good in every culture and we can value these differences.  
    
    - The death penalty has not deterred crime in this country at all;
      therefore, we should not have it.
    
    - The NRA and other groups are extremists.
    
    - If you assimilate bad people into good neighborhoods, the bad people 
      will become good people.
    
    Derek, I believe in looking at the best in people.  Each statement I
    made above is of the liberal flank in this country.  If people who
    prescribe to the above are not misinformed, then it automatically
    default to them being liers.  I find the bullets provided above to be
    philosophically disingenuous or misinformed.  If you take offense to
    this, well I can't do much about it...the fact remains they are all
    utopian fibs!
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack, take it to the "Politics of the Left" topic, willya?
    

       Or even better, to David Duke's NAAWP, where it sounds like it
       came from in the first place.

    Re .455:
    
    > The nutters are *out* *there*.  They are using the Internet.  They are
    > using shortwave.  They are using faxes.
    
    They are using Licea-Kane's account!
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

	.480  what's this??  an insult from edp??  zounds.
	      who'da thunk it?

    
    CONFERENCE POLICY, PEOPLE, CONFERENCE POLICY!
    
    ;^)
    

    How much coverage do you get with a conference policy?  Are the
    premiums high?  Is it anything like universal life?  

    
    
    Topes,
    
    
    You've got to be joking.....

Having just read through the last 70 replies, I'm left wondering what Mr. 
Bill has done to deserve all this attention.

That must have been some nerve he struck  :-)

Doug.

    
    Or someone's pulling chains to make people think...
    

    re: .459
    
    You are correct.  Thanks.

    >That must have been some nerve he struck  :-)
    
    What it shows is the strong right-wing tilt in here.
    
    I'd even call it a sensitivity.
    
    Mr Bill happens to set it off.  Deliberately.  The words he uses are
    not by any means the only 'fightin words' phrases ever uttered here-
    and most of the time we all let them pass.
    
    DougO

    
    > What it shows is the strong right-wing tilt in here.

    You consider this place as having a right-wing tilt ! 
    Trust me buddy, you got no idea what a right-wing tilt really is....

    <right of Atilla the Hun>
    Dan

    
      Dan is correct - the country is now to the right of Soapbox, if
     the US is with the Congress.  Heck, it's to the right of me.  Because
     of the heavy Massachusetts tilt, and the lower average age than the
     voters, any Digital general forum would be to the right of the
     general population.  What IS interesting, is that both the country
     AND the Box are far to the right of 5 years ago.  There has been a
     swing to conservatism, one that eventually must reverse, like all
     American political swings.  But there's no sign of it right now.
    
      bb

           > Because of the heavy Massachusetts tilt

    you're kidding, right? this whiny please-take-my-income-
    and-squander-it labor-union dimocrat liberal porta-potty of a
    state leaning to the right? you've got to be kidding me.
                                 
    about the only thing right wing about massachusetts is the way
    people like scott harshburger use gestapo law and order to catapult
    their political careers... not much different from NY with
    clowns like Giulianni...

    -b

    
    > about the only thing right wing about massachusetts is ...
    
    Not to disagree with you Brian, but you forgot me....
    
    :-)
    Dan

    > Not to disagree with you Brian, but you forgot me....
    
    no offense intended dan...
    
    although i should point out then when it comes to right-wing-nut-ness,
    i've probably got you sussed.:-)  maybe not on certain social issues
    (gay rights, abortion) but overall, my politics are the type that
    keep people awake at night... :-) :-)
    
    -b

    
    <---------
    
    
    Bragger !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    >not much different from NY with clowns like Giulianni...
    
    Sooooooooooo TRUE!!!!
    
    ...Tom

First they whine about the term "nutters" and then they claim to be
"nuttier than thou."  Eeep!

    
    not me. i wasn't whining. i just joined the fray to take a
    couple of pot shots.
    
    -b

    
    Did someone say "pot"?
    

    Pot shot?

    POT SNARF

    
    hey, mannn, i'm coool.
    

    
     Got my port/starboard mixed up, sorry, I meant that the Box is
    leftwards of the USA because of heavy PRM representation.  But it
    is still rightwards of where it wuz, even a few years ago, like
    everywhere else in the country.
    
     bb

| <<< Note 6.427 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>



| RE: .411 Glen, he was slick willie long before he became pres.

	And the NRA was full of gunnuts long before Amos joined!!!! :-)  Now
the question is will Amos afford the same luxories to clinton that he wants for
himself!!??  :-)


Glen

    
    
    You spoke with Amos and know he is a very reasonable and down to earth
    guy, I can't say the same thing about Clinton......

    re: Note 6.455 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    > "Trust No One" *means* "Trust No One!"  ***VERIFY****
    
    Bill, you sound paranoid.  Might I suggest a laxative.
    
    Sure there's a lot of trash on the internet.  But where there's
    smoke there's fire usually.  
    
    Of course we can't help but figure in the "mainstream media".
    I mean seriously, think about it.
    Packwood did some filthy stuff (whenever) and the media is stringing
    him up buy the nads, yet they IGNORE other "favored" folks.  A
    good example is chapa-chapstick, chappaquid.... er, you know...
    Senator Rudolf.
    Another fine example is "the good-ol-boy-roundup".  Ya, that got
    swept under the rug real quicklike, eh?  But, if ole Newt or
    Dole said "ni**er" the media'd be ridin' their ass for weeks.
    You see what I'm saying?
    
    Some crap on the internet may uncover stuff that could stand a closer
    looksee.  Like Whitewater, or Waco.  Go back and look for yourself,
    people were caught LYING.  Under oath even.  Clintons friends are
    going to PRISON.  This isn't nutters blindly reading the internet
    and getting "facts", stuffs happening.  Clinton released "all the
    documents" and then next week... more stuff shows up.  What's going
    on?  They're lying.  Why?  one can only wonder because the truth
    will NEVER come out.
    
    FWIW:  Newt, Dole, Clinton.... same <r.o.> different wrapper.
    
    Take it easy bill.  Yer gonna have a stroke.
    
    Yer Pal,
    MadMike
                        

| <<< Note 6.505 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>



| You spoke with Amos and know he is a very reasonable and down to earth
| guy, I can't say the same thing about Clinton......

	Amos is a great guy. But I haven't talked to Clinton, so if I use your
criteria, anyone who hasn't directly talked to the guy can't say anything bad
about them, can they???? :-)

    Let me sumarize the absurdity of your paranoid position.
    
    "Mainstream media" - can't be trusted.
    "Politicians" - can't be trusted.
    "Law Enforcement" - can't be trusted.
    
    "Retired Law Enforcement nutter blowing smoke" - *HE* can be trusted,
    because afterall, if there's smoke, there's got to be FIRE somewhere!
    
    								-mr. bill

    >        Amos is a great guy. But I haven't talked to Clinton, so if I
    >use your
    >criteria, anyone who hasn't directly talked to the guy can't say
    >anything bad
    >about them, can they???? :-)
    
    Following that logic, you can't say anything good about them, either.
    
    I hear Hitler had a great way with words.

    <<< Note 6.506 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

Mike, Mike, Mike. By your examples ye shall be hung.

>    Packwood did some filthy stuff (whenever) and the media is stringing
>    him up buy the nads, yet they IGNORE other "favored" folks.  A
>    good example is chapa-chapstick, chappaquid.... er, you know...
>    Senator Rudolf.

Your memory is short. Ted's adventures were in the news for a very long 
time. Longer than it was present in the courts or senatorial debate. 
Packwood's adventures are still playing out.

>    Another fine example is "the good-ol-boy-roundup".  Ya, that got
>    swept under the rug real quicklike, eh?  But, if ole Newt or
>    Dole said "ni**er" the media'd be ridin' their ass for weeks.
>    You see what I'm saying?

The good-ol-boys are NOBODIES. Nobodies don't stay long in the news. Never 
have. Never will. Left or right. (Rosenburgs being one of the few 
exceptions) If Dan Rather was there, though, it'd be *big* news still. 
Believe me. The media loves a scandal. The bigger the better. But it takes 
a really "big" person to make a realy big scandal. 
    
Tom                        

| <<< Note 6.510 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>



| Your memory is short. Ted's adventures were in the news for a very long
| time. 


	Tom.... Saturday Night Live doesn't count... :-)

    
      The Doctah says he deleted 510.60, but I still read it.
    
      bb

He deleted it, and then someone posted another reply.

    
      So, deleted fer stupidity, is it, Harney ?  Iffen ya enforce that
     one, yull be mute, fer sure.
    
      bb

re: .514

Trouble with comprehension?

If you can show me the words "deleted for stupidity" in that
reply I'll give you $20.

Sounds easy.  Tough to win, though.

NEXT!
\john

>>Trouble with comprehension?

	clearly.  he can write, but he can't read. 

    
      Lady Di - how quickly you turn ?  Ah, it must be a mod-solidarity
     thing.  The tri-lateral commission.  Bring on the black helicopters.
    
      True, technically, yer Harniness.  You deleted the note without
     cause, in true Napoleonic splendour.  But you gave yerself away
     with the snide admonition to the Boxrabble.  Don't be stupid, indeed !
     Ya need training in arbitrariness frum yer french betters...
    
      bb

>>      Lady Di - how quickly you turn ?

	I didn't turn.  I think you're very intelligent, knowledgeable,
	well-written, and generally intriguing.  I've thought that for
	quite some time.  You never let up about the mods though - never
	fail to view any action taken in a negative light.  That I haven't
	understood for quite some time as well. 

    
    	So is anyone keeping score here?
    
    
    	1)  Cats don't count
    	2)  All mods are conspiring scum
    	3)  Men are ready
    	4)  Women are willing
    

    >You deleted the note without cause,
    
     1.3 (3)
    
     Admittedly it's a judgement call, was the author really "advocating"
    or was it just rhetorical, but since he's responsible for the content
    of this file and you're not, I guess you'll just have to defer to his
    judgement, now won't you?
    

    Oh yawn.

    Come back when you have something interesting to say.
    \john

    
      See, see, everybody ?  They're ganging up on me.  It's the
     rottenness of the system, I tell you.
    
      bb

	bb..... don't fret.... buy a cat

    
      Why, thank you, Glen.  That's a practical suggestion. What would
     you recommend I name it ?
    
      bb

    re: .522

    Help I'm being oppressed!

    -b

    "Bloody peasant noter!"

| <<< Note 6.524 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Frustrated Incorporated" >>>


| Why, thank you, Glen.  That's a practical suggestion. What would you recommend
| I name it ?

	Like you said.... Spot! It was actually a play on another note. I think
it was Jim Sadin who said in the wine topic (I believe) that we know 3 things.
One of them being is a cat is really nothing, or something like that. Same as
that note string getting deleted. It's really nothing. :-)

    21.1504 is a solicitation.  I happen to agree with it, but its against
    Policy and should be removed from the conference.  Sadin, I think you
    should reformat it or something.
    
    DougO

I thought solicitation was only asking for money or such.

A call to call your congresscritter doesn't seem like solicitation. (IMHO)

Amos

	Doug, I have seen other conferences with similar things in it that
didn't have a problem. While I don't agree with the note, I think it should be
allowed to stand. 


Glen

    Irrelevant. The note was a solicitation, and has been deleted.
    Hopefully Jim will see fit to reword the note to be informative rather
    than exhortative. 

 "exhortative" - ooh.  there's a $40 word.
  

    
    
    note has been reformatted and reposted....
    
    jim

    
    >  "exhortative" - ooh.  there's a $40 word.
    
    40 bucks !  I woudn't give it more 'en about $22.50
    
    :-)
    

       Moderator Levesque announced the deletion of a note "for an ethnic
       slur".  The note in question used no word that was vulgar; rather,
       the note simply associated an individual with an ethnic group.  
       
       The note was certainly tasteless and contemptible, but I disagree
       with the idea of deleting it.  Let the note and its author be
       exposed to the light of day, rather than keeping it hidden behind
       closed doors.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    Agreed.
    

    
      So, Topes are ya gonna have any decent cheese Sunday ?
    
      bb

        I agree with Don.
        
        

    
    Chite!! I hate to admit it, but so do I....
    

    I refust to admit that I agree with Topaz.   8^)

       I may have to reverse my position.
       
       And the comestibles will be of a certain standard.

    
      Suitably effete liberal, eg Brie ?
    
      bb

    >francophonia...
    
    francophilia. /hth :-)
    
    and ch�vre too, one hopes. :-)

	I gotta agre with MT. Show us!!!!!  

    I agree as well - (omygawd!)

	ethnic slurs are against policy.  what's the big
	brain strain here?

    
    No big strain...we just wanna watch Buckley squirm out from under
    his comment, if he can.
    

    .546
    
    Topes sez it wasn't a slur. We can't decide, since we can't see it.

    
>>    Topes sez it wasn't a slur. We can't decide, since we can't see it.

	it was.  what are the mods supposed to do - wait until everyone
	in the 'box sees it and takes a vote?

    
    .550,
    
    No, just come to me for guidance.  ;^)
    

  .547  "squirm" is a good choice.

	but the doctah was right to delete it.

    
    <---   sort of like the blind leading the blind !joan? :-)

    
    Is the Buckmeister at it again ?!? My gawd, you can't
    turn your back on him for a minute! :-)
    
    Here's a free clue regarding our beloved Buck. When it
    comes to someone who likes to stir the hornet's nest
    (are you listening Mz. Deb?), he can't be beat. But
    there's a huge difference between the "notes Buck" and,
    well, the "_real_ Buck". Concluding anything about his
    character from what he writes here is like concluding
    that Richard Pryor belongs to the Klan 'cause he used
    to use the (dreaded) N-word.
    
    -b

    
    	Speaking of NOTES/real people, anyone remember Pete Cook?
    
    	8^)
    

       Yes, and, as was his wont at Digital, he still makes a braying ass
       out of himself on Usenet.

    
    Yeah, I remember him. He's the one who got mail from some
    throbbing cornhole about what I wrote yesterday. Oh well,
    it was an opportunity for me to tell the Cookstah what
    I thought.

    -b

    
    	Oops.  8^)
    
    	No, it wasn't me.
    

    It's the moderators duty to make the call in situations like this.  If
    you don't think it was the right one, ask yourself if you think HR
    would support you in your request to have it put back in the
    conference.
    
    Bob

    
    .553
    
    Well, Brian, I've asked in both 15.3204 and 15.3210 for Mr. Buckley
    to clarify his comment.  If he wants to, fine.  If he doesn't, then
    I'll have to take it at face value.
    

       
       The Mod Squad set topic 417 (The Repository) no-write.  I'm sure
       there is a reason, but I can't figure it out.

    The probably forgot to unlock it after they removed the offending
    notes.
    
    Bob

    It's a quiet substitute for unbridled ululating.

       re .561:
       
       I see you know as little about Notes as you do about C150s.   The
       latter don't have double-slotted Fowler flaps, and the former does
       not require a moderator to write-lock a note before deleting
       another noter's note.

    ...or ululating with impunity even.  

    re: .563
    
    Please show me where I claimed that C150s have double-slotted Fowler
    flaps.
    
    I also never said that you need to write-lock a note before deleting
    another noter's note.  However, if you wish to prevent another copy of
    an offending note from appearing in a particular topic, it makes good
    sense to write-lock the particular topic while you track down and
    delete all remaining copies of the offending note.
    
    Bob

    Letting th ululate fly with impunity? On a Fokker perhaps?

    
    Try 204.
    

       > Please show me where I claimed that C150s have double-slotted
       > Fowler flaps.
       
       Certainly; my pleasure:
       
================================================================================
Note 11.9186                  Things to Like Today                  9186 of 9242
CALLME::MR_TOPAZ                                     11 lines  13-OCT-1995 08:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       150?  It's gonna be nearly as old as you, Jack (though certainly
       not as old as me).
       
       Watch out for the double-slotted Fowler flaps; if you see 'em,
       you're probably in the wrong place.
       
================================================================================
Note 11.9187                  Things to Like Today                  9187 of 9242
ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150kts is TOO slow!"       8 lines  13-OCT-1995 08:26
                                 -< ????????? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .9186
    
    What's wrong with seeing the flaps?  I always look at them in a high
    wing aircraft to verify that they are where I want them, rather than
    trusting the indicator, although I use the change in pitch as my
    primary indicator.  Same thing for the gear.
    
    Bob

       Oh, and another thing:
       
       > if you wish to prevent another copy of an offending note from
       > appearing in a particular topic, it makes good sense to write-lock
       > the particular topic while you track down and delete all remaining
       > copies of the offending note.
       
       Stultifyingly stupid.  If a note is not to be in the conference,
       you simply hide or delete the note.  Prohibiting replies allows
       anyone to read and extract the offending note.  

    re: .568
    
    You claimed they were double-slotted Fowler flaps.  I merely took
    exception to your comment that seeing flaps was bad.
    
    Bob

    >The Mod Squad set topic 417 (The Repository) no-write.  I'm sure
    > there is a reason, but I can't figure it out.
    
     Too much wine and cheese, no doubt. 417 is again writable.

    re: .569
    
    We will just have agree to disagree on that, keeping in mind that the
    moderation techniques one uses tends to vary with the culture of the
    particular conference.
    
    Bob

       
       re .571:
       
       The Mod Squad is thanked.

    
    	Actually, Topaz is right.
    
    	Setting a note /nowrite is an unnecessary extra step that takes
    	more time to do than not to do, and extends the amount of time
    	that an "offensive" note is available to copy/extract.
    

    >   Stultifyingly stupid.  If a note is not to be in the conference,
    >   you simply hide or delete the note.  Prohibiting replies allows
    >   anyone to read and extract the offending note.  
    
     The issue is that certain notes (like the one recently discussed in
    this very string) are sufficiently controversial that they are
    guaranteed to elicit a flurry of replies in a small time period. In
    such a case, it makes sense to lock the string and hide the note while
    forwarding the note to its author (which can take a couple of minutes
    while we explain to the noter what a naughty boy or girl s/he's been.)
    This prevents people from responding to the note, or even seeing it.
    Unfortunately, some people are pretty quick on the draw, and by the
    time a mod has contacted the miscreant, another copy of the offending
    note (with insightful commentary) has appeared (if the note was not
    locked.) This is what happened the other day, as a result of this
    moderator's failure to lock the string and hide the note.

    Re: 568.226

    >It's mean and unfair to ask noters to think before they write,

    No, but it's spurious (and maybe something else) to assume that they
    don't.

    >thoughtful and well considered notes have no more intrinsic value than
    >"droppings,"

    Not sure who has said this.  I sure didn't. 

    >Harney should find another conference to host,

    To the speaker of these words...DEFENESTRATION! 

    >garbage notes has a potent lobby,

    Define "garbage", and then identify the noters who aren't guilty of
    posting "garbage".  Eric P. springs to mind, DougO perhaps, and maybe
    Harney.  Precious few others.

    I can see *your* point, Doctah.  Can you see *mine*?

    jc