Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00047)

I just misspelt putting one extra r in "Jerry", it should be Jerry.

...mkr

At 03:50 PM 12/12/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi, Jerrry:
>
>I agree with your reasoned response. And again, if one does not like what is
>going on or what one would like to say is unacceptable whether implicitly or
>explicitly, one can always move to another list where a restriction may not
>be there.
>
>mkr
>
>
>
>
>
>At 12:26 PM 12/12/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>Hi Ramadoss,
>>
>>    Your position is certainty supportive of our first amendment rights.
>However,
>>I'm more concerned about one's responsibility to others.  We may or may not
>have a
>>constitutional right to use inappropriate language in public, but we also
>have a
>>duty to ourselves and others to act in a responsible manner.  Part of our
>>responsibility, IMO, is to be aware of the sensibilities of others.  We may
>not be
>>driven off by scatological language, but others will.
>>
>>On another level there are also inappropriate subjects, and communication
>styles.
>>These vary with the discussion site.  Regarding inappropriate
communication, I
>>believe that in all of the Theosophical discussion groups, ad holmium
>attacks are
>>considered to be inappropriate communication.  regarding the subject
matter,  a
>>tightly monitored board like Ts-l,  has a very long unwritten list of them.
>>Theos-talk, on the other hand, considers anything pertaining to theosophy or
>>theosophical history to be OK.  However, people have been driven off this
and
>>other lists because they find certain theosophical subjects personally
>>distasteful.  In this case, they can always go to a monitored discussion
group
>>that will protect them from those subjects.
>>
>>This brings us back to the freedom of speech issue.  I think that
consideration
>>for others is paramount in how we express ourselves--IMO it is a higher
>>consideration than our freedom to do otherwise.  On the other hand, the
>subjects
>>we discuss ought to be kept in the framework established by the discussion
>site.
>>Otherwise, one can always move to another site or start a new one.
>>
>>To relate it to the case that started this discussion, i.e. Brenda's and
>Daniel's
>>disagreement, I feel that three issues were distressing some of the
>readers: 1. It
>>was becoming obvious to many that nothing was being resolved from the
>discussion;
>>2. individuals participating in the discussion were being attacked and 3.
>>objectionable scatological language was used.   All three of these issues
were
>>under the control of the participants.  Again, I think it is an issue of
one's
>>responsibility to others for HOW we express ourselves.  On the other hand,
>it is
>>an issue of  what the format allows for WHAT we discuss.
>>
>>JJHE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>M K Ramadoss wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Jerry:
>>>
>>> Thanks for your informative response.
>>>
>>> In the maillists, I have found that some times some may use language that
>>> one may not like for one reason or the other. On the other hand, the
number
>>> of subscribers on theos lists are quite small. From what I have seen,
it is
>>> very important that we don't run off even a single subscriber because over
>>> a period of time, I have seen individuals change and become active
>>> theosophists. So I am a proponent of supporting everyone to post anything
>>> however distasteful to me personally. My 0.02.
>>>
>>> mkr
>>>
>>> At 01:33 PM 12/11/97 -0800, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>>> >Yes, Ramadoss, it is evident from numerous accounts of  private
>>> discussions that
>>> >the founders occasionally used what would be considered by today's
standards
>>> >very mildly scatological language (such as "damn").  I  would not be
>>> surprised
>>> >if such words occasionally showed up in notes exchanged between the
>founders.
>>> >Rather, I have seen them in letters written by all of the three
>founders.  My
>>> >own personal feeling about it is that there is a time and place for all
>>> kinds of
>>> >language, and considering the three founders were closely involved, and
>>> events
>>> >were very often frustrating, their language was indeed appropriate
between
>>> them
>>> >and for those situations.  I feel no shame for their choice of words in
>these
>>> >instances.  However, in the case of theos-talk,  the audience is much
>larger,
>>> >and we don't all personally know each other.  Therefore, I would think
>that a
>>> >more formal tone and choice of words is appropriate.  I don't mean that
>humor
>>> >must be left out.  On that count, I must agree with Thoa that there
are some
>>> >Theosophists I know who I would love to see loosen up a little.  On the
>other
>>> >hand, humor does not need to be scatological, to be funny.