Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Language on List
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:08:44 +0200, ox wrote:
then again, I may be very wrong - so help me out :)
The universal rule of ladies and gentlemen is to avoid giving offense. So one does not discuss or use references (unless in a professional context e.g. doctor) to excretion or sexual behavior. One avoids any negative references to other persons and to political or religious beliefs. Those are good practices for this list. So excluding crap and merde which are offensive words. Re: "generalised swearing. It's a part of modern language" -- that's a culture-specific interpretation. Such behavior doesn't occur in most of the world and it never occurred when I was growing up in 1950s America; then I went abroad for 45 years and coming back to America smutty language is indeed widespread. It's not 'modern': it's a degenerate phenomenon of certain cultures. It's unknown in much of the world. It's repugnant to refined sensibilities. Behaving this way doesn't betoken one's "modernity" -- it betoken's one's personal coarseness. Jeffrey Race
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:34:50 -0500 "Jeffrey Race" <jrace@attglobal.net> wrote:
The universal rule of ladies and gentlemen is to avoid giving
I take very strong exception to this and on on this list. This type of sexual stereotyping is not only archaic but is extremely offensive to some people. Offensive comments has no place on an abuse workgroup and I demand an unqualified apology from jrace@post.harvard.edu Or, barring an apology, I would like jrace@post.harvard.edu to agree to self punish: Force yourself to watch two seasons of Bart Simpson (i suggest season 6 and maybe 9...) For the rest of his post, the writer has lost touch with reality and clearly has a higher regard for sensibilities than for communication and the free (OPEN) exchange of ideas. "Helping someone out" does not mean helping them from the side of the ditch into the actual ditch. It similarly does not mean that you should publish your bias and be as offensive as others have been. Then, your reply is pov (point of view - yours) your opinions are not facts... For example, someone else may have the opinion that: Expletives are useful, not only to display relationship and for communicative use but are fun to use! Offense is a choice and although I have understanding of your repressed humanity, a one word response to your post could simply have been "balls" And, speaking for myself, it is humorous when the boss farts by accident in a very formal meeting. What can I say, I am but a course obnoxious shitting and laughing brute. And I laugh at the thought of me, a killer (I eat meat) and my body processing that into energy (most of which is used by my brain) because the reality is so very freaky. I believe the British called my culture "Boors" because we seem so common, unsophisticated and, well "boorish" In truth we have so much ubuntu, so much compassion but we do not like bullshit. I hope that all helped you out (but probably not as Dinosaurs are as dinosaurs do...) Andre
offense. So one does not discuss or use references (unless in a professional context e.g. doctor) to excretion or sexual behavior. One avoids any negative references to other persons and to political or religious beliefs.
Those are good practices for this list. So excluding crap and merde which are offensive words.
Re: "generalised swearing. It's a part of modern language" -- that's a culture-specific interpretation. Such behavior doesn't occur in most of the world and it never occurred when I was growing up in 1950s America; then I went abroad for 45 years and coming back to America smutty language is indeed widespread. It's not 'modern': it's a degenerate phenomenon of certain cultures. It's unknown in much of the world. It's repugnant to refined sensibilities. Behaving this way doesn't betoken one's "modernity" -- it betoken's one's personal coarseness.
Jeffrey Race
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:34:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:08:44 +0200, ox wrote:
then again, I may be very wrong - so help me out :)
The universal rule of ladies and gentlemen is to avoid giving offense. So one does not discuss or use references (unless in a professional context e.g. doctor) to excretion or sexual behavior. One avoids any negative references to other persons and to political or religious beliefs.
One might if one were a particularly sanctimonious protocol droid. Also, another rule is to avoid *taking* offence at the slightest provocation. As long as those above-mentioned references are not to any participant's digestive or sexual behaviour, swear away.
Those are good practices for this list. So excluding crap and merde which are offensive words.
What century is this?
doesn't occur in most of the world and it never occurred when I was growing up in 1950s America; then
This is not the 1950 and certainly not America. (The United States of, I doubt Latin America has such a hang up about swearing...)
unknown in much of the world. It's repugnant to refined sensibilities. Behaving this way doesn't betoken one's "modernity" -- it betoken's one's personal coarseness.
Arguably, if one's sensibilities are so refined, one should take care to avoid AAWG... This, and by extension, the other RIPE MLs are lists for operators, not linguists or philosophers (no offence to any ops who are also philosophers and/or linguists, one should never assume). We do, on the whole, though, call a crap a crap when we see a crap. For the avoidance of doubt, personal attacks are, of course, out of order; no matter *which* characteristic of the attacked they intend to impugn. cheers, Sascha Luck
Jeffrey Race
On 02/02/17, 1:12 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Sascha Luck [ml]" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
We do, on the whole, though, call a crap a crap when we see a crap.
I’ve had to do that many, many times on this WG thanks to people who have zero background in abuse management at scale, but that’s beside the point. None of it has descended into actual abuse so far. --srs
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:12:39 +0000, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
What century is this?
The rules are timeless. across the millenia. Some people in some places choose not to observe the rules, and some periods and some places see more violations than others. According to whether you observe or violate the rules, you define yourself as refined or coarse. Coarse people have fewer life opportunities because they are viewed as inconsiderate of refined persons (who mostly control the worlds institutions). This is basic sociology. I hope it is helpful to my fellow list members. Jeffrey Race
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:24:10 -0500 "Jeffrey Race" <jrace@attglobal.net> wrote: <snip>
define yourself as refined or coarse. Coarse people have fewer life opportunities because they are viewed as inconsiderate of refined persons (who mostly control the worlds institutions).
Goes back again to the 'definition of abuse' What is abuse? I could argue that Jeffrey Race posting about "refined persons" controlling "coarse persons" is abuse in itself. The "slavery" mentality (fits in with the extremely offensive and very sexist "Ladies & Gentlemen") - slavery plantations in the USA south much? You do realize that some of us has worked, seen and dealt with aberrations of atrocities so offensive as to cause severe stress (for those among us that are not sociopaths)
This is basic sociology. I hope it is helpful to my fellow list members. Jeffrey Race
If you are completely honest with your self, admit that there are other tenets of basic sociology that you are ignoring in your generalized statement. And again, pointing out that "refined people" control the world, is not helpful at all.
Folks, Really, none of this is useful or in any way related to network abuse. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ On 03/02/2017 05:27, ox wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:24:10 -0500 "Jeffrey Race" <jrace@attglobal.net> wrote: <snip>
define yourself as refined or coarse. Coarse people have fewer life opportunities because they are viewed as inconsiderate of refined persons (who mostly control the worlds institutions).
Goes back again to the 'definition of abuse' What is abuse?
I could argue that Jeffrey Race posting about "refined persons" controlling "coarse persons" is abuse in itself.
The "slavery" mentality (fits in with the extremely offensive and very sexist "Ladies & Gentlemen") - slavery plantations in the USA south much?
You do realize that some of us has worked, seen and dealt with aberrations of atrocities so offensive as to cause severe stress (for those among us that are not sociopaths)
This is basic sociology. I hope it is helpful to my fellow list members. Jeffrey Race
If you are completely honest with your self, admit that there are other tenets of basic sociology that you are ignoring in your generalized statement.
And again, pointing out that "refined people" control the world, is not helpful at all.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:53:36 +0000 Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Folks, Really, none of this is useful or in any way related to network abuse.
Only as it relates to and serves to display "IRL" what different societies consider network abuse (or even mailing list abuse) for example, content transmitted on networks could qualify as network abuse as either the content (promotion of: slavery, sexism, brute pass attempts, porn, whatever) is considered abuse by the network operator OR, importantly, the society (country and/or culture even) of the particular network or even network operator. Then, bulk unsolicited packets could also be abuse, depending again on the network operator, country or even society. In other societies (in EU/RIPE) porn and certain things considered as 'abuse' elsewhere is acceptable (or tolerated and/or not illegal, etc) And, then on this mailing list: At which point does tolerance win out over offense. - As this too was demonstrated (which is cool, of course and thank you for your service, etc) OT: (Of course I agree 100% that talking about "refined" people dominating "course people" is not relevant at all, except as it serves to display, promote and advertise elitism -as a norm - or normal - or socially acceptable - whereas and in truth, many abuse admins have to deal with an/or relate to nefarious types all day long and creating an expectation that abuse admins have to be "ladies & gentlemen" in order to join the dominating class (or 1%) and/or to be promoted -- is really not cool. Not cool at all. Never mind the fact that such sexist remarks are extremely offensive and no apology was offered at all. So much for a practical and visible display of "refinement" At least in my society, it is not acceptable to grab people's cats and for sure, such a degree of courseness will never control a nuclear arsenal... but well, I guess even the society of @harvard.edu is as it practically does. ) People who live in glass houses should not play with (or throw) stones or was that people who live in paper huts should not play with matches? Andre
participants (5)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Jeffrey Race -
ox -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Suresh Ramasubramanian