Somehow I can't respond to the first thread, see my problem on this thread. I thought I might as well start a new thread since the first one is already quite long and I have spent all this time typing my response to Ken.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 02, 2000

Answers

First off Ken, know that I find you very engaging in debates and interesting (take as proof that I have been spending way too much time today on this thread, eagerly anticipating your responses), and that I DO appreciate Flint's and your civil gentlemanly manners. But we're discussing styles, tastes, personalities, morals and levels of education here. We could debate until the cows come home and never agree.

"From the top... a handful of people on a single thread in an obscure forum hardly constitute a community standard. This is a public space, not someone's living room. There is the illusion of a social context, but it is really a gathering of strangers even more anonymous than the average city bus station. After all, at a bus station we can see to whom we're speaking and people generally don't use silly pretend names."

I agree with you that an internet forum is a public place and the contrast to a bus station. But I disagree with it being an "illusion of a social context". It is not an illusion, it is a different form of social context.

"You agree, simply, that it is rude to ask an anonymous woman if she mud wrestles. This is exactly what has happened. Spain does not "know" the women to whom he is speaking. The familiarity is an artifice."

I agreed that it is rude to ask a stranger woman on the street if she mudwrestles. But since I don't agree with you that the streets and this internet forum are same social context, the familiarity goes with the context in which it is meant on this forum.

"As Flint aptly notes, the anonymity of the Internet divorces the speaker from the usual accountability. One of the balancing elements of social interaction has always been the connection between a person and his or her statements."

And I see this "divorce of the usual accountability" as not a bad thing in itself on the internet, as it allows people to be more honest and confrontational with what they really think, as opposed to "in real life", where one would not want to offend one's neighbor or friend, as one's priority to keep peace with neighbors and friends are higher than on the internet, where one's priority to speak frankly about an issue would/could be higher.

"If Spain makes a sexual comment in the workplace, he faces real consequences. If he tells racist jokes, he may lose some friends. If he spouts silly ideas, people may form a negative opinion about his critical thinking ability."

Again, context. I'm used to the context of the internet, where I don't expect people to behave the same as in the office.

"The Internet is the moral test alluded to by Aldo Leopold. We are measured by what we do when no one can see us."

The internet is a plethora of forums where freespeech runs wild and free, not a moral test. That statement to me is akin to saying that the printing press was a moral test, because books, literature and publication of every kind abound in this country.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 02, 2000.

(continued)

"I fully agree with Flint that the Internet has bred an anti- intellectual movement."

You see a movement where I don't. Where you see an anti-intellectual movement, I see people of all walks of life engaging each other. It is not a movement, but a new development.

"People who write well are castigated as "arrogant" or "condescending." "

I did say that your criticism of KoS' mudwrestling comments was doubly condescending, but certainly not because of your writing abilities. I've spent all afternoon trying to explain to you why I find that criticism arrogant and condescending. If it would have been someone much less educated than you making that comment, my opinion of the criticism would remain the same. It is not your level of education, your writing skills, nor your civility that I find arrogant or condescending, but the self-righteous tone you demonstrate at times, and in particular on this thread. You're certainly not the only one guilty of that.

"Your solution, Smarty, is simply to have the literate walk away. This same suggestion was made many times on the old forum. After all, people like Flint and I had the the annoying habits of speaking clearly and refusing to leave.""

I did not offer a solution, I simply asked a question to Flint. And certainly I would not want you and Flint to walk away, or else I'd not be so engaged and interested in discussions such as this one.

"If the decent people leave, I think everyone loses."

Agreed. But on the other side of the coin, if all those you consider indecent according to your standards leave, then everyone loses also.

"If the racists are allowed to rant with no voice of dissent, we all are diminished. Our hope, as a society, is that there will be enough voices who decry the culture of the cheap, the coarse and the vulgar."

As seen through your own filter of morality and standards, I agree.

(I've finally found what my problem was. Appears that my post was too long! How embarrassing ;) And with this I'm signing off for the day. I've spent too much time on the forum today, but it was interesting.)

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 02, 2000.

We are discussing sexism and civility. This forum is a social context insofar as people are communicating... but I fail to see where it goes much further. A group of people, most hiding behind silly names, write about a wide range of subjects.

You sidestep the simple fact that Spain has asked almost everyone poster with a female name the infamous mud wrestling question. It is disingenuous to suggest Spain "knows" these women, particularly since he was shocked when one of his targets turned out to be male. Oops.

You acknowledge that Spain's behavior would be unacceptable in any real public forum but you consider it allowable on the Internet. I disagree. I fail to see why a statement is offensive in real life but innocuous on the Internet.

Spain clearly does not know all the women he queries. He offends some. Why? Because it is impolite (and sexist) to ask an anonymous woman if she "mud wrestles." Sexism is behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on gender. I think approaching every female as a potential source of sexual entertainment meets this definition.

Besides, why does we need the Internet to foster "honesty?" What opinions need the protection of anonymity? It is easy to find groups who have taken advantage of the secrecy... pedophiles, racists, hate groups, etc. Insteading of lusting after small children in your neighbhorhood in social isolation, you can join an online community, meet in secret, share ideas.

The Internet is a powerful medium and it will be no better or worse than the people using it. What I have seen, however, is that anonymity facilitates behavior that would not be readily tolerated in real life. You have been proven this point repeatedly. Clearly, Spain can continue his robotic query of female posters indefinitely.

Do you really think sexism is a concern for the "self righteous?" Do you think the value of unbiased treatment of persons regardless of gender, race, ethnicity is a "filter?" Do you think the Internet is a place where the rules of civility simply do not apply?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 02, 2000.

Ken:

"Besides, why does we need the Internet to foster "honesty?"

May I include this in my file on Bushisms alongside "Is our children learning?"

Sorry...couldn't pass that one up.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 02, 2000.

Anita - queen of tacky

you really are a self-centered bitch you know

-- Catherine (the@great.one), October 02, 2000.

Anita, I average about one or two typos a post. I am relatively sure you realize I can differentiate between singular and plural verb tenses. Of course, why bother cutting me any slack when you have an opportunity to treat a presidential candidate like a cartoon character. "Bushism?"

I find it ironic that you criticize the republican candidate for poor grammar while the democratic candidate is allied with the single greatest obstacle to improved public education... the K-12 education bureaucracy and teacher's unions. Sound bite over substance, Anita... you might wish to consider running for public office.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 03, 2000.

YES!!!! Put both Catherine and Anita in the TB2K-spinoff Mudwrestling Pit!! Their sleek bodies oiled, their passions burning, their pent-up furies unleashed! Their critical thinking abilities put to the ultimate test...

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 03, 2000.

You accuse KoS of constantly offending women with a sexist comment, yet in your very first sentence of your response above you offend a large part of participants of this forum with "A group of people, most hiding behind silly names, write about a wide range of subjects." There's an irony here somewhere. I don't hear the women complaining to KoS about his comment, yet I hear many people complaining about your own behavior. Using critical thinking skills, I conclude that I am correct in saying that you offend more people in general than KoS does, at least on this forum.

"Besides, why does we need the Internet to foster "honesty?"

We don't NEED the internet to "foster honesty", the internet just is. You twist my words, I said "allows people to be more honest and confrontational with what they really think". As in my case with you. Yes I'm a wimp, I'd never hold this confrontational conversation with you in your living room or mine, or if we met in Vegas for example. It'd be way too rude, wouldn't it? Yes it would. But how else could you find out what people really think about your opinions, ideas and abilities? The interernet has been called "The Great Equalizer", and it does just that (and way more.) It gives courage to the highschool graduate to discuss ideas with a Ph.D., and disagree. It pools brains together so that not one person can fool everyone all the time or impress with artifice. We're exposed, naked brains. No social barriers.

And ofcourse, the downside to anonymity are those that you mentioned. There are downsides to everything.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

Rather than being indicative of the Fall of Western Civilization, I think this debate might be an example of gender differences. Many guys think that women are at times oversensitive to the machinations of other females. The men that I know are usually much more sensitive to the maneuvers that other males exhibit, especially around women.

-- flora (***@__._), October 03, 2000.

Anita, I average about one or two typos a post. I am relatively sure you realize I can differentiate between singular and plural verb tenses.

Perhaps the issue is that you have chosen not to proofread your post for typos before posting it, just as others choose not to proofread their posts for the spelling and grammatical errors that you point out to them.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 03, 2000.

For some strange reason, I find the turn from the origional post to this discussion humorous.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), October 03, 2000.

Sheeple,

Now YOUR Response COULD be indicitaive of the Fall of Western Civilization.

The end is near, I tell ya.

-- flora (***@__._), October 03, 2000.

I didn't coin the term Bushisms,Ken.

Thank you, Hmm. That was exactly my point. Yeah, I know it was tacky, Catherine, but Ken's been going on and on about the faults of people on this forum for a long time.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 03, 2000.

Decker: You said: "Do you think the Internet is a place where the rules of civility simply do not apply?"

Yes I do. The rules of civility "do not" apply in this odd land we've created. I find a good number of people extremely rude and sometimes cruel.

(Although, I must say, some of the kindest people are "here" too. I guess the bad stands out more than the good. Like real life. I mean who notices the drivers that don't p*ss you off? ;-)

EX: The other day, I was on another board and a girl was telling how she was orphaned at 2, and was made a ward of the state. One poster actually wrote "your parents probably killed themselves just to get away from you..." (and I've seen equally cruel things said to some people on these boards--but I'm not dredging them up just to make a point ;-)

Can you beleive someone would say this to your face?

Not where I live.

Can you believe that people would berate others they've never met for the sole fact that they don't agree with a basically minor opinion/point made? The amount of rudeness (sp?) on the net is GREATLY facilititated (SP? sorry, I really can't spell;-)by anonimity.

And as an aside, that's why I don't find the "mud wresteling" comments rude at all... by the standards of the net it is quite mild. And sometimes it just makes you feel like you're "home" again {smile}. You adjust your standards according to where you are, I guess...

I don't post much, because I don't feel like being slammed for something I said in a quick moment, before I ate lunch, knowing that there are people out there just waiting to jump on your every mistake or misconception.

Don't get me wrong. I like message boards and the chat rooms can really make you laugh.

But I've gone on long enough. I just wanted to answer that question you asked. Struck a nerve.

Mar.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), October 03, 2000.

I think Ken writes very well. He's proud of his writing but of course realizes that typos (even after reviewing for the gazillionth time) can still be found. If that's the worst fault we can find with Ken, I'd say Ken should run for office.

FWIW, even though I don't find the royal phrase objectionable, I do find it tiresome. Like the child actor's phrase, I got really tired of hearing, "Wha you talkin' 'bout Willis?" But Ken has every right to speak out against it and smarty has every right to find him condesending for it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 03, 2000.

Agent Smith, you make a good point for my argument of "context" I have with Ken. Also, I understand your disgust with the cruel side of the internet as shown by your example. But after a while one has been on the internet, one developes a sense of what is meant to get our goat, and what is meant honestly and by whom. That is the essence of flaming and wearing flame-proof pants when one logs on a forum or chat room. Note also that you will find variying degrees of this kind of behavior depending on what age level and topic the forum/chat room is geared to.

Also Ken, the big difference (at least to me) between KoS's behavior and yours is that he does not take himself as seriously as you do, and he makes it obvious. The name or "handle" one signs off with is a big clue to this effect.

-- I remain, (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

Ok, OKAY, my REAL NAME IS.....................CARRIE.

Ahhhh, feels much better, now you KNOW there IS a name behind my 'tacky' posts...?

KOS: I think you are funny and I've never been offended. You remind me of Nemisis.

Anita: Truly a WOMAN of MUCH class. :-)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 03, 2000.

y2k was a clue for those willing to look and understand the vunerability we humans face from reliance on systems. we are as reliant on oil as computers. look what is happening to oil is there any left??? then what you have a meltdown because you put all your eggs in the oil basket. this was never a test it was a wake up call???. are you pollies out there so confident the refined oil is going to flow uninterupted???? no magic patch this time boys. when its gone its gone forever. tptb cannot come out and say soory folks not enough oil this winter can they?????. its never over till the fat lady sings, she just aint got no gas to get her to the show.

BEST WISHES BOB

-- bob (Bob@ghoward-oxley.demon.uk.), October 03, 2000.

Another downside you forgot to mention about anonymity Ken... One can never be sure wether someone is jesting or really sick and confused.

Hello Bob? Anyone home?

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

In the US, an indifference toward scientific understanding is almost considered a badge of honor. - Norman Augustine (Science, Mar. 13, 1998)

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), October 03, 2000.

The Engineer,

Is humor considered one of the hard or soft sciences?

-- flora (***@__._), October 03, 2000.

flora,

I think the engineer is talking about the science of wrestling.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), October 03, 2000.

Smarty,

An individual cannot choose gender, race or ethnicity (dare I add sexual orientation?). On the other hand, a person who writes on this forum does choose a name. Folks like Flint, Brian McLaughlin, Jim Cooke all seem relatively comfortable posting under a real name. To use a psuedonym like "Big Dog" or "King of Spain" or "a" seems a bit silly. So we disagree.

I may offend some people on this forum, but not because I treat them in a sexist, racist or bigoted manner. If I wandered into a Klan rally, I'm sure the participants would find me "rude" for questioning their value system. Again, Smarty, you make me the issue rather than the specific action of Spain we have been debating. Is it, or is not, sexist to ask an anonymous woman if she mud wrestles?

Hmmm, I spent well a year on the old forum and carefully avoided pointing out spelling and grammatical errors. In my hundreds of posts on both fora, I doubt you can find more than a handful of posts where I corrected another writer's spelling or grammar.

Anita, my comments generally have been directed at the forum as a whole. Some people have chosen to take these comments personally. So it goes.

The issue here is civility (and critical thinking) on the Internet. Thus far, a number of people have forwarded the notion that Spain's remarks do not offend them. Fine... but is that the appropriate way to determine if a comment is sexist? There has been a general agreement that this same behavior would not be tolerated in real life. If Spain cruised the local streets asking random women to mud wrestle, he'd probably get an earful, if not more.

Why then do we tolerate behavior on the Internet that we would not in real life? When I met folks at the northern Virginia Y2K gathering, the experience was uniformly pleasant. There was nothing close to the vicious personal attacks of the old forum.

Is it possible the callous behavior so easily tolerated on the Internet will gradually spill out into real life? I honestly don't know, but I am disturbed by the glib willingness to tolerate incivility with nary a raised eyebrow.

Is the problem that I take myself too seriously? (laughter) Ask someone who knows me in real life or even Bingo who met me in Virginia. The issue is that this forum is not a social event for me... it's a place to engage in intellectual discussions. A week or two ago I was on Spain's "side" arguing against Charles Reuben. This week, I'm arguing against Spain's knee-jerk response to a female name on the forum.

Critical thinking is pursuing an argument regardless of "sides." One of the great mistakes of Y2K was that some people allowed personal relationships (and forum dynamics) to shape their analysis. On this forum there are people who are "well liked" and people who are "disliked." Unfortunately, the Internet does not allow us to all have a beer at the end of the day and laugh. The written word does not allow the nuances of a smile, a laugh, a gesture. I imagine the majority of folks would get along well over a decent dinner. But returning to the point, how you like or dislike a poster should not influence your analysis of the argument. I detest Charles Reuben (if it is possible to not like a person you've never met), but he is occasionally correct. One of the tests of critical thinking is separating the people from the ideas.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 03, 2000.

Branded as a bit silly.

As Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space" would say...."Oh the pain...the pain!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 03, 2000.

Ken, I give up. We're going in circles. You pose questions, I answer them in great length, then you say I turn the issue around about you.

"Is it, or is not, sexist to ask an anonymous woman if she mud wrestles?"

You became the issue when the question was answered, because you refused to take my (and the prevalent attitude of women here) answer that it is ALL ABOUT CONTEXT.

Then you revert to the same arguments you've made many times before, including that you're here to discuss intellectually. It's all fine and well if you chose to present only your intellectual side on this forum, that's your choice, but many others including me believe that humor has it's place even in intellectual discussion. So we're back to square one; what is humor? What is sexist humor? I've attempted to explain to you as a woman, what I view as sexist, and what I view as inoffensive suggestive humor. You rejected that answer. You then insist that one SHOULD behave the same on the internet as one would behave on the streets. I've tried to explain why I don't agree with that. Others have chimed in good supporting points in my favor. You ignore that too.

So then, we disagree, you've disagreed with others on much of the same arguments before, and it's obvious you don't want to change your mind on any of it.

But you add this new gem for me: "Is it possible the callous behavior so easily tolerated on the Internet will gradually spill out into real life? I honestly don't know, but I am disturbed by the glib willingness to tolerate incivility with nary a raised eyebrow."

This is the crux of the matter for you, isn't it? Your -irrational fear- that this callous internet behavior will spill out into real life. No it won't. It can't.

This isn't TV or passive media that drums tenets into people's skulls with no opportunity to discuss, disprove and disagree. All of the subtle social pressures and dinamics that enable us to function in the real world are present in one degree or another on the internet. This is commonly refered on the internet as "self-regulation" as in internet self-regulation. No fast rules(no one to decree WHO's morality to follow, right or wrong), only basic principles, which will always be served in the end on the internet, by self-regulation, and in "real life" by self-preservation. (Read Eve's article on principle and rules, it's very appropriate here.) So this is why the internet will never be like "real life" in context, and "real life" will never be like the internet. Your kind of civility had started to erode way before the internet was opened to the masses. This "erosion" is not due to uncivilized or otherwise communication between people of all walks of life, but by generational choices. The choices people make in their everyday lives and in raising their children. And the people we choose as our political and spiritual leaders.

So again, KoS's comment can be vulgar, humorous, silly, moronic, sexy or innapropriate, but it's not condescendingly sexist to me, and to other women on this INTERNET (context) forum. And as other women have pointed out here, if KoS, whom I don't know outside the internet, were to walk up to me and ask that question, I would at least raise an eyebrow, as it is inapropriate in the CONTEXT of the real life streets.

And finally, I completely agree with the essence of your last paragraph.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

smarty, you are giving up, and that is exactly what he wants you to do. That way, he wins!

-- (neener@neener.neener), October 03, 2000.

Hmmm, I spent well a year on the old forum and carefully avoided pointing out spelling and grammatical errors. In my hundreds of posts on both fora, I doubt you can find more than a handful of posts where I corrected another writer's spelling or grammar.

I don't see how the number of posts is relevant. The fact is, you chose to correct another writer's spelling or grammar when, in fact, you also chose not to proofread your own posts for typos. It is inconsistent to expect Anita or anyone else to "cut you slack" regarding your typos if you won't also "cut slack" for others regarding their spelling or grammar errors.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 03, 2000.

Against better judgment (and lack of time) I wade into the deep end.

Smarty: Also Ken, the big difference (at least to me) between KoS's behavior and yours is that he does not take himself as seriously as you do, and he makes it obvious. The name or "handle" one signs off with is a big clue to this effect.

You speak of behavior, Smarty? KoS routinely demeaned posters last year. Routinely berated and attacked posters who disagreed with the party line on TB2000. He was part of the gang of thugs who's behavior was wild, disrespectful, disgusting, low-class, moronic, etc...

KoS is a one-trick pony who has tossed out the same one-liner for 18 months now +/-. When KoS emerged here last month I was befuddled by the response. He was greeted as a returning hero! This alone told me a great deal about some folks here. Forgiving is compassion in action. Forgetting is ill advised. Rewarding bad behavior is unconscionable.

KoS is a guy who has shown a long-term lack of regard for many civil, intelligent posters. One who has repeatedly posted words which would have had his ass in a sling had he uttered them face-to-face. You Smarty think this is a good thing. Freedom! Hurrah! Anonymity allows for honesty!

I say, crap on those people who don't take responsibility for their words and behavior, IRL and internet alike. The hell with folks who hide in the shadows and snipe, take potshots and retreat into their shadow world of anonymity.

Finally, I met Ken last year. We spent several hours discussing all manner of subjects. When it came time for the silliness to ensue, Ken was right there quoting entire Monty Python skits.

That tired Mudwrestling line is funny? Give me a break. Laugh and encourage that crap all you like, Smarty. Excuse me whilst I cringe.

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 03, 2000.

Bingo, had you followed this discussion between Ken and I from the begining (on first thread), you'd have seen I've clearly stated that I wasn't defending KoS the man behind the handle, but the (in)famous mudwrestling comment he makes to women. I have disagreed with KoS, I have agreed with him, and my point about KoS is the comment on mudwrestling, no more, no less.

Also, I try hard to ignore a person's reputation from past behavior and beliefs, as I know that people and myself included change our understanding and behavior as life goes on. So I do forgive, and I do try to forget to some extent when appropriate. I give the person a chance to demonstrate his/her new thinking. Minor quirks in behavior aren't an issue for me, the overall behavior is. KoS' overall behavior and personality is no more disturbing to me than Ken's, and his ideas are as valid as Ken's. Other's have disturbed me greatly because of the actual phisycal harm they've done or do in HTML or spamming trying to impose their views and morals on me and the rest of the forum. That tells me that the real disturbed person behind the screen probably resorts or would resort to some kind of phisical coertion in real life as well.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

p-h-y-s-i-c-a-l, ok I got it.

Oh and "neener" you said: "smarty, you are giving up, and that is exactly what he wants you to do. That way, he wins!"

I doubt that that's what Ken wants or think. We both win (and everyone reading) by debating our views, we both lose (and the reader) when we stop. But I agree that Ken might give you the impression that he wants to win more than I might give that impression myself. I said to Ken "I give up" because we were going in circles, getting nowhere with the same arguments. An impass. Nobody "wins" on opinions, they can be debated forever, at infinity.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

Smarty,

Yes, we disagree about context. You contend this is a social gathering of familiar characters... a corner bar, if you will. I claim it is an Internet forum of mostly anonymous participants. Your argument fails in at least one critical aspect. First, Spain occasionally tossed his one-liner towards complete strangers. If this is the "Cheers" where "everybody knows your name," how do you explain Spain mistaking a man for a woman? (Bad lighting?)

This is a public space where people come and go. I think we ought to strive for the same civility we would practice in any public place.

The fact that you can find people who agree with you doesn't make your opinion correct. If memory serves, the "pollies" were a minority voice on the old forum. If truth was determined by majority vote, Flint, Hoff and I would have lost badly. So, some of the women who regularly post on this forum agree with you... It is possible other women have chosen to avoid the forum because of Spain.

If this were EZB, I would have never broached the issue. EZB is a private, password-only club. If you don't like the rules (or what happens in the club), don't join. A public forum is different. This is where we disagree.

Rich,

Thanks, friend. As you know, I'm not busting on Spain because he engaged in endless personal attacks last year... though it's tempting.

Essentially, the mudwrestling remark doesn't bother Smarty or her friends so it can't possibly be sexist. In fairness, men use the same logic. "Hey, it's not like I'm married so it isn't really cheating." "I'm just borrowing the office supplies." "C'mon, no one drives the speed limit on this road." "Everybody does this on their taxes." "(laughter)

I think you'll agree, Rich, that civility and morality are not contextual. Every time Smarty talks about "context," I think a NMBLA meeting. Here you can find a group of men who think it's acceptable to have sex with young boys. I can almost hear her say, "But that's different." How?

Are civility and morality purely situational? Are standards simply a matter of group approval? I don't think so, but I'm in the minority.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 03, 2000.

Ken:

Are civility and morality purely situational? Are standards simply a matter of group approval?

They have been throughout history.

I don't think so, but I'm in the minority.

OK, which minority. Your photo on the other site had horns and satanic features. :^)

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 03, 2000.

Ken:

Sorry, the other site would be:

Decker

The satanic stuff was not my interpretation, but someone else. The photo is too small to contain real information. You seem to have developed a following.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 03, 2000.

Interesting Ken. Either you are intent on twisting the meaning of what I'm conveying on purpose, or you're not using your famous critical thinking skills in this debate. Only you know the answer and your motives (assuming you're willing to look into your own motives.)

"Yes, we disagree about context. You contend this is a social gathering of familiar characters... a corner bar, if you will. I claim it is an Internet forum of mostly anonymous participants. Your argument fails in at least one critical aspect. First, Spain occasionally tossed his one-liner towards complete strangers. If this is the "Cheers" where "everybody knows your name," how do you explain Spain mistaking a man for a woman? (Bad lighting?)"

If this is truly what you got out of everything I said so far, there's no point for me to go any further, you'll keep misinterpretting or twisting. It's almost as if you didn't read where I contrast and define the internet vs real life. A corner bar is not the internet. Where did you get this idea?

"This is a public space where people come and go. I think we ought to strive for the same civility we would practice in any public place."

Which new people come and go on THIS forum? Anyone new since classic TB2K that you know of?

"The fact that you can find people who agree with you doesn't make your opinion correct."

No argument there. Can you admit as much?

"If memory serves, the "pollies" were a minority voice on the old forum. If truth was determined by majority vote, Flint, Hoff and I would have lost badly. So, some of the women who regularly post on this forum agree with you... It is possible other women have chosen to avoid the forum because of Spain. "

Apples and Oranges. We're not discussing y2k. Because you were right on y2k does not necessarily makes you right about ANY and ALL issues. You have a problem with grasping that.

"If this were EZB, I would have never broached the issue. EZB is a private, password-only club. If you don't like the rules (or what happens in the club), don't join. A public forum is different. This is where we disagree."

No this is not where we disagree. EZB is a password protected forum, and if you want to call it a club, fine, but that's a name derived from real-life. In the context of the internet, it's where people of same mind-set want to meet without disruptions from disagreeing people (on this we agree but the difference in context is marked.)

It is one tiny microscopic protected corner of the internet. The internet is an umbrella term, a dimention encompassing ALL ideas, views, interests, focus that human beings can come up with. And that umbrella itself has no set rules and policies. Each tiny part of it making their own rules or lack of them if they wish. There is the well known "Internet Netiquette" as a guidance for communication between people, but no rules that you must abide by, no one to enforce it. This forum is wide open to ideas, uncensored, unprotected by password. How could I even begin to think it is like the corner's bar? But yes, it is public, but not bound by any rules of the "real world" for lack of better term. So here where we disagree is that you argue that your OWN rules and OPINION of "real-life" civility should apply here as well. I'm asking; Who are you to impose your rules on the internet? Why is it that you should be more enlightened than others concerning how people on the internet should behave? Note that I don't claim to know better than you, just that I have a different opinion than you, and that some people using the internet will disagree with you and me both, some will agree with you, some with me. But the end result is, no one has monopoly on the internet and how one SHOULD behave on it. For better or for worse. Welcome to the closest to democracy that this planet has ever experienced. Mindboggling, isn't it? Especially mindboggling for Americans (used to think highly of ourselves), and self-righteous people of any nation. That in itself, is the crux of our disagreement.

"Rich,

Thanks, friend. As you know, I'm not busting on Spain because he engaged in endless personal attacks last year... though it's tempting."

Ohh! I see... Rich is your friend, so how do you explain this comment? "You contend this is a social gathering of familiar characters... a corner bar, if you will. I claim it is an Internet forum of mostly anonymous participants."

And I'm supposed to believe you're not busting on KoS because of his personal attacks on you last year?

I can only conclude from that that you're self-deluded and attempting to delude me and the rest of us in this debate.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

Z1X4Y7:

Thanks for that link to the picture of Ken Decker and friends. Tough to see how much area he covers, but judging by the cheeks, I suspect it's ample.

Ken:

Do the blondes like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 04, 2000.

Please tell me, where was the outcry when the outcry when the porn was posted to threads? Now that is sexist!

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), October 04, 2000.

Sheeple,

Some of it was gay porn, so I think it fell beyond sexism, into the area of lowereing the level of discourse that folks felt comfortable with. Same with the racial garbage that was posted. {That was the desired effect}. When the uproar about the post with Diane's address having been changed by the moderator heated up, there was discussion about porn. It was humorous, and I'm sure some posters had their toungues in their cheeks - BUT there seems to me to be a bit of hypocrisy when it comes to taste and standards.

KoS,

That request WAS tacky.

-- flora (***@__._), October 04, 2000.

Ken stated: I think you'll agree, Rich, that civility and morality are not contextual.

They both can be. This is dependent on the individual. Personally, my behavior has at its source my own core values and principles, occasional brain burps aside. Weak-minded people, if I read Smarty correctly, shift theirs chameleon-like based upon whether they can/will be held responsible for their words and actions, or not. So the environment of the internet, because it offers anonymity, allows the weak and nefarious to behave what I would call inappropriately without fear of repercussions.

IRL, if a guy were to ask a female companion of mine if she would like to mud wrestle, he very well might find himself with a birds eye view of the pavement. But this is the internet, the Wild West of the 21st Century. Some of us try to be upstanding citizens in these one-horse towns called fora; to project the best of what we are inside to those with which we interact. I dont see this as being exceptionally difficult, nor an extraordinary request of others on my part.

FWIW, the reason I ask people to provide active e-mail addresses is so I can communicate privately when the need arises. I dont enjoy taking the occasional poster to task publicly for writing material offensive to me. If there is no way to contact said poster, I usually right him/her off. This is unfortunate.

So tell me Smarty  and any other poster who fails to provide contact information  why do you hide? Why must I refrain from addressing issues which are best tackled privately because you are unwilling or unable to acquire a Hotmail account or similar?

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), October 04, 2000.

Z,

I believe there are moral absolutes, and I feel this position is in the minority.

Smarty,

Here's my argument: 1. The comment on mudwresting would not be appropriate in a public place if directed at an unknown woman. 2. This forum is a public place. 3. The comment has been directed at unknown women (and a man).

You agree with my first contention. You cannot disupte my third contention since it has been proven. The real issue is over my second point. You see the Internet as "different" than a public place in real life. If we boil down your position, you contend that Spain ought not approach women in the street with his mud wrestling line, but this behavior is acceptable on an Internet forum.

Some of the posters on this forum never visited the old TB 2000. Jim Cooke comes immediately to mind. Frankly, I don't know how many "new" people visit. You don't either. We may have "lurkers" who stop by, read a few posts and vanish. Because this place is open- entry, open-exit, it is reasonable to assume strangers can and will visit. In short, it's a public place.

Now, as to your misinterpretations... I am not saying I am right because people agree with me. In fact, I made the opposite point. It is possible for a minority opinion to be "right." I have never suggested I am right about Spain's sexist comment because I was right about Y2K. Please.

Here's where your train jumps the tracks. I'm not imposing my rules on anyone. I'm not lobbying the sysop to delete Spain's messages. I'm not volunteering to act as censor. I am simply exercising the same right to free expression that Spain does. To express my opinion on his "sexist" comment does not impose my rules on him.

I am not claiming a higher level of enlightment, but making a case that particular question is sexist. I'll make the same case if I find a statement racist. By law, I must tolerate sexist and racist rhetoric... but I am not obligated to ignore it.

I have met Rich in real life and found him a personable and intelligent man. We had an excellent conversation and I have a standing offer of a good steak if he comes north to visit. Since I know Rich in real life, I feel comfortable addressing him as "friend." It's that whole reality thing again.

As for your comments about a grudge against Spain, you don't know me and you haven't paid attention to what I have written. If Rich or Flint or Brian McLaughlin started to ask women to mud wrestle, I'd make the same statement. Charles Reuben was a "polly" and yet I criticized his boorish behavior. What I sense from you, Smarty, is this knee-jerk reaction to anyone who criticizes another person's actions. You call it "self righteous." Well, I think some behaviors warrant criticism. I think some actions are destructive, cruel and bigoted. Again, Spain's right to question is no greater than mine to criticize.

Listen, I don't take infantile insults like Spain jab at my weight seriously. The comment says far more about him than it does about me. Of course, you'll see he does not restrain himself and makes the tired mud wrestling comment about my colleagues.

Standing up for civility on the Internet is like speaking on behalf of women's rights at Woodstock II. I doubt many are listening. So it goes.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 04, 2000.

{continued...}

I have a old friend who can extremely amuse or infuriate me at the drop of a hat. He's a master instigator. The Spain post above is an example of pushing limits & trying to get Ken's goat. At times Ken also amuses & infuriates, usually about literacy or education... common sense, age...but I digress. There is a finer line between humor and anger than I'd noticed before. Doc asked awhile ago 'humor, where does it come from'. I'd thought of posting something about pain, but this particular discussion has caused me to adjust my thinking. Guys, the gals didn't have a problem like you did, and I think your condescending attitudes about this may be more offensive than Spain's spoofs. Care to take a crack at that at all?

-- flora (***@__._), October 04, 2000.

I, for one, would like to fuck Ken Deckers brains out.

You're not offended, are you? LOL

-- Catherine (the@great.one), October 04, 2000.

Rich...do you like handcuffs and candle wax?

-- Catherine (the@great.one), October 04, 2000.

Uh, Cathy,

You forgot an apostrophe.

-- flora (***@__._), October 04, 2000.

There's a good article today about sexual harrasment:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/CAREER/trends/10/03/harassment/index.html

State of the workplace Sexual harassment: Serious, subtle, stubborn October 3, 2000 Web posted at: 5:59 p.m. EDT (2159 GMT)

"This is probably one of the most difficult areas of the law because we all come from different backgrounds," says Anne Covey, an attorney in Pennington, New Jersey. Covey represents management on a national basis in labor and employment law."

-- flora (***@__._), October 04, 2000.

Smarty:

You and Ken seem to be talking past one another. Nobody will contest that as a medium, the internet poses few restrictions on behavior. As an anonymous participant, you can be as big a jerk as you choose, as total an asshole as your imagination allows. You can run around pissing in the soup and there's very little anyone can do about it that isn't worse than the problem you represent in the first place (EZboard is an example). There are almost no standards of behavior that can be imposed on you, and those few that exist are slow, expensive, and limited.

If your behavior is governed only by your conscience, then what you say is a measure of your character. We don't have to know who KOS is in real life, to know that his sense of humor places him squarely at the trailer-trash level. If this is how he acts when no feedback mechanisms influence his actions, then this is the kind of person he IS.

Imagine a course in school where everyone is guaranteed to get an A, no matter what. How hard you study, or how much you learn, does NOT MATTER to your grade. Ken is taking the nominal position that you should strive to learn as much as you can anyway, because doing so is to your own benefit and probably to everyone else's benefit as well. You are better off educating yourself even though you suffer no direct or immediate penalty if you choose to remain ignorant.

In contrast, you seem to take the position that you don't have to act like a grown-up unless someone can *make* you do it, and on the internet nobody else can. Only YOU can define the standards of behavior you choose to hold yourself to. Ken isn't self-righteously demanding that you adopt his opinion, so much as he's requesting that you reflect the courtesy and decency your parents tried to instill in you, *even when you don't have to*!

You're entirely correct that the internet shows us the lowest common denominator. I don't know what's more appalling -- how low that really is, or how some people just can't imagine that doing their small part to raise it might be a good idea.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 2000.

There are those, Catherine, who would suggest your task is already near completion.

I know women who are funny, bawdy and genuinely delightful. As a rule, these charming women also have class. They do not make loud, lewd remarks in the middle of a crowded lobby. They understand the difference between a private setting and a public forum. They know that in uncertain circumstances, it is better to err on the side of restraint. Personally, I do not find these women "elitists." They refrain from comments and behaviors as a matter of common courtesy. I simply hope some people bring this sense of decorum to Internet.... And if they want to be naughty, get a room.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 04, 2000.

I yield. Flint makes my own points far better than me.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 04, 2000.

Ken, I feel we've beaten this horse to a pulp. Like I said before, you're more tenacious than I am.

I'll end with this:

I respect your opinion and your code of civility on and off the internet. I myself prefer to be as civil on the internet as I am in real life, but I appreciate the fact that I can tell someone on the internet what I think of their opinion in a straight forward manner . As flora pointed out before, it's probably a difference in gender, as I would feel very out of place holding such a confrontational discussion with you in real life. Perhaps you wouldn't, perhaps it's your mode of operandi in real life as well.

I concede I digressed considerably from the main point, which is KoS's mudwrestling comment. I can't add anything to that which I haven't already said and which flora condensed again in her post above. In essence, KoS's attitude here is not condescending, simply goofy, and does not come out offendingly sexist. Your attitude on the other hand, IS condescending, whether you see it or not. That is offensive whether you gear that attitude towards women only or both genders. KoS does not act as civilized as you, yet his vulgar manners don't offend me as much as your civilized condescension. That's about it. Andy Ray's persona (which I believe is completely made up and not really how he acts in real life) is an example of an exaggerated caricature of you. He gets everyone's goat and relishes it. Yet he never made vulgar comments to women or anyone.

And I'm not defending KoS as a friend, he is not. You're not my friend either, and I have taken your side when appropriate. I have no friends here, I don't want to meet anyone in real life, I'm happy to have the freedom to say what I think whenever it suits me.

Bingo, there are many reasons why one would choose to remain anonymous and not provide an email address. Andy Ray has given his own reason to OTFR a couple weeks ago, he is afraid for his safety. Me, it's because I want to remain detached and not making "buddies", this way I don't feel the pressure to toe the party line. Whether you approve of that or not, I don't care. I'll not feel hurt if you say what you think about me on this public forum, I have no ego or name to protect.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 04, 2000.

*** We don't have to know who KOS is in real life, to know that his sense of humor places him squarely at the trailer-trash level***

Flint, why don't you pull that stick out of your ass and spare us this holier than thou shit. =)

-- cin (cin@=0.)), October 04, 2000.

There goes that offending condescention again, this time with Flint.

So someone is not as educated as you and does not come from the same elite background, they are "trash", nevermind they have a brain and can bring new angles to discussions that you have missed.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 04, 2000.

Yeah, Flint. And maybe my palace isn't quite as up to par as the next king's, but gawd, you don't have to insult the whole frigging royal neighborhood. (Even if the maids do have big hair.) Belllchhhh.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 04, 2000.

But the question everyone should ask themself is:

If you were hosting a party that you wanted everyone to enjoy themself at, who would you invite KOS or Decker?

Oh, and you have to pick one!

-- (neener@neener.neener), October 04, 2000.

Smarty,

There are two issues. I think we have agreed to disagree on Spain's mudwrestling comments. A completely separate matter is your perception of my "arrogance."

During my time on the old forum, I tried to write in a formal style. Some people this as "arrogant" or "condescending." Not surprisingly, the people who were most bothered my writing style were those who disagreed most strongly with the content. For nearly a year I fought to keep the discussions focused on my arguments, not my writing style or persona or my alleged status as "government operative."

People who read my posts can choose to focus on what say or how I say it. Just as I ignore poor sentence structure or bad grammar, others can ignore my "arrogant" writing style... if they really want to talk about the issues.

By the way, I'm not from an "elite" background. I grew up in a poor, blue collar family. I was the first person in family to attend university. During my entire time at college, I worked. When I ran out of money, I did a hitch in the service and returned to the same college. I worked full time while in graduate school. In short, I earned my education.

This does not make me "better" or "worse" than the next person... but I didn't sweat out an education so I could dumb down my posts. I'm not here to cater to someone else's academic insecurities.

I have never ridiculed anyone for a lack of an education... but I have criticized ridiculous arguments. If you really do your archival reading, you'll find that I respond well to graciousness... one of the reasons Helen and I don't have any problems.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 04, 2000.

Decker, hands down. He'd be far more witty than Spain.

-- Virtual Host (party@down.com), October 04, 2000.

You completely miss the point, Ken. You're defending your arrogant condescending attitude by saying your proper grammar and spelling is what people find arrogant. Not so, many people write as well or better than you do, as well as being very civilized even to your standards, and yet they're not arrogant nor condescending.

You obviously don't understand what sexism is. Your attempt to convince me that you do is like you attempting to convince a black person that you understand better than him/her what racism is. That in itself is arrogant.

Let me attempt to give you a very basic definition of sexism, and sexual harrassment.

Sexism: Condescending attitude that some men have towards women, believing themselves superior because of their gender. This attitude is shown in miriads of subtle and not so subtle ways. Discriminating on the basis of gender, for what ever reason, when all else is equal or equivalent.

Sexual harrassment: Attempts by a man to dominate a woman with the use of sexual language or physicaly without her conscent. This also takes place in miriad of ways, subtle and obvious. At home and on the job.

Now, with this in mind, KoS's mudwrestling question to women is reflective of himself as to his tastes, gender, manners and whatever else, but not sexist because he does not entend it to be sexist/condescending. He consistantly uses this comment when he means to pay a compliment to a woman. Tacky? Well so what, he certainly isn't the only one according to my standards. But tackyness and vulgarity in itself does not insult the listener, condescention does.

A true gentleman understands this difference.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 04, 2000.

I mudwrestled once. At first it was fun. The babe wore leather and a mask. I copped a few feels. That's when I discovered that my partner was a man--KOS! Nice buns tho.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), October 04, 2000.

smarty:

Extremely well put. I'm afraid Ken's ridiculous attempts, which only get sillier, to try to get mileage out of this has backfired on him. "Royally", I might add.

If, for one minute, I thought that the women of this forum were honestly offended, I would cease pronto. On the contrary, again and again on thread after thread, we have all played it for the tension relieving humor that it was meant to be. (A little OLD at this point, admittedly....)

Maybe it's because it's the election season, so Ken feels he needs to point out my political incorrectness. I could not care less. What I WOULD like is for Ken to answer my question about those hot blonde babes in the picture that Zxxxx posted -- namely, do they like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 04, 2000.

nemesis@awol.com:

I think that quite mistaken, sir! In fact, I KNOW that you are!! Perhaps you should try solo needlepointing instead?...

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 04, 2000.

Just a little silliness KOS, don't take umbrage. You KNOW that I are.....what?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), October 04, 2000.

I think Ken would bring a book of brain-teasers to a party, and KOS would bring a whoopee cushion. Which one you might find more entertaining is a matter of taste.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 2000.

Ok, so how come there were NO objections when I ran around asking capn fun to restle?

Did I offend as well? Am I a sexist? For shame for shame.

PS, I'd take the both of them, Ken would be a riot after a few beers and KOS would be a blast....I can vision it now as KOS asks Ken to mudwrestle.......after slipping a whoppee cushion under his seat.

HEE HEE

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 04, 2000.