Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00048)

Yes, we can always move to another list with a format that suits us better.
However, this is very much aside from what I'm trying to say:  i.e. we have a  basic
responsibility to others concerning how we express ourselves.  I  think this
responsibility is a more basic consideration than our freedoms, our rights etc.

JJHE



M K Ramadoss 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.