Nancy,

Just curious.. Why do you ask? I mean, is this a legal issue in your mind, a moral issue or ??

If you'll permit me, I'll give you my answer, which may not satisfy you since I'm not an "official" anything here. <g> Just kind of typing out loud if you will...

I would try to speak to you as I would want to be spoken to. Since I think that common vulgarity is just that - vulgar, then I'd not speak that way to anyone. The point being is that I take responsibility for the only person I am able to so do - me. I would also expect you to take responsibility for you, JVP for JVP and so forth. Why would I not want to speak that way (without respect) to anyone? Because that other individual has intrinsic value and I want to make sure I acknowledge that fact. I believe that everyone does have intrinsic value - whether they believe it or not.

Now, if I believe that others do not have intrinsic value as a human being and I'm constantly wailing about my "rights", that certainly implies to me that I would think I have value. I'm just upset that others don't acknowledge that fact. But the puzzling thing to me is that these folks are demanding something they already have... But, if I take the position that people do not have intrinsic value (I guess starting with myself??) I suppose it's really no big deal for me to demand my rights at the expense of the value others have by the simple notion that they do not have intrinsic value. It's every man for himself, regardless of who they hurt, right? I hardly think this is mature, enlightened, advanced or anything else of value. I think it's exceedingly selfish, immature, and self-centered. "My rights" indeed... Pahh...

So, for me, it's me demanding my "right to be rude" at the expense of someone else. (In common parlance I've heard "Screw them", "Who cares what you think?", etc)

OR

I take personal responsibility and treat others with the kind of respect by taking the initiative with the hope they will show themselves to be more interested in the good of the community than their own selfish agenda. It's lifting up, not tearing down. Life over death - at least with respect to the ability to create and maintain interpersonal relationships. Can you imagine asking a dinner guest some of the questions folks have asked each other here. I guess folks just do not have any shame or manners.

Will everyone do this? No, sadly there are some who are blind to their condition and they cannot seem to get beyond the need to have others recognize the same lack of self respect they demostrate daily. So, they constantly stir up trouble and for what end purpose? That they have somehow proved something to others (themselves I suspect, really.)?

So, which way do you think is the best way to proceed? Choose voluntarily to restrain yourself (asked generally, not just of you, but also of you as well), demonstrate respect for your fellow human beings and treat them as you would like to be treated all the while leading by example -or- do you demand your rights regardless of anyone else?

Which is more mature in your mind do you think?

I certainly won't argue with anyone about their so-called rights but as has been pointed out before this isn't a public forum and the owner has every right to expect that those whom he has invited into his "room" behave themselves in the manner he has decided.

I'd treat you the same way if I were to enter your home.

I'd be willing to bet that if we could all get through our collective thick skulls this very simple principle we'd have a much better online experience. Unless, of course, the actual intent is to disrupt and if that's the case for you or anyone else I say toss your sad carcass out as you have deliberately chosen to destroy rather than build and whomever has done this has removed themselves by their demonstrated behavior that they have excluded themselves from rational society.

When animals go that irrational, biting everything in site you're often left only with the option of eliminating them. I don't particularly feel sorry for someone who shoots themselves in the proverbial foot and then proceeds to blame everyone else, do you?

Just my opinion.....

Best,

DD



>I've requested clarification from one of the SYSOPS here about the rules of conduct. They have been unable to answer my questions.
>
>If malicious profanity is not allowed, then:
>
>1) What are the standards of "maliciousness"
>2) What is profanity? I ask because there are many threads here on the UT that use "F*, effing, f*dup, damn, shit, piss, crap, and hell."
>
>When I pointed this out, I was told, quote: "*Malicious* use of profanity is not allowed, not mild profanity itself. What we are really concerned with is obscenties. Hell, damn, crap....whatnot are not obscene." (Side note: If that is so, then why don't the rules _say_ obscene instead of profane? And, so far as I know, my neices and nephew aren't allowed to use any of the words.)
>
>To continue, I was informed that what can be heard on network T.V. is okay to say. A couple of questions arise from this guideline:
>
>1) I don't have a T.V. so I don't know what is current. I haven't had one in several years.
>2) Would one need to document the T.V. show that they heard the word on?
>
>Finally, I was told that it is not that hard to know what is "acceptable in normal social discourse." Well, that is NOT damn, hell, crap, etc, in my view of what I'll call polite language. As for "normal social discourse." That, of course, varies wildly.
>
>You may think I'm just being a smartass. I'm not. I'm as deadly earnest about this subject as _any_ of the advocates of _rules_. But I am being told that because I disagree I am stupid, etc.
>
>I hope that perhaps someone might see that rules themselvesdo not make for civil discourse. Especially since they are not enforced. Few people get banned...and so far, all I can tell, they are those who you've deemed "outsiders." For not doing much more than we do to each other _every_ day here. Even as a non-parent, I know that a rule uninforced is worse than no rule at all.
>
>That's all. Carry on. But, if someone does have a logical, rational guideline, please do let me know. Otherwise, I'll know what the rule is: it's whatever the ruling majority think it is at any given moment.