Tweeters,

Well, as someone aptly pointed out in a recent post...we know a lot more
about Don Baccus than we did heretofore. I'd say that goes for Michael
Price too. Whew, there's my 2-cents worth and that's about all I'll offer
on this very inappropriate dialogue, except for the following:

(I deleted this paragraph because it was inflammatory, but it had to do
with my revulsion regarding recent posts by Don Baccus and this one by
Michael Price on the subject of language on Tweeters).

An unfortunate result from this distasteful and inappropriate topic will be
the loss of information regarding birds to those on Tweeters. Witness Paul
Cozens withdrawal of the Seattle RBA from Tweeters. I suspect there are a
number of other birders, naturalists and conservationists who have learned
much about birds in the Pacific Northwest, their behavior, whereabouts and
migrations, who are also uncomfortable with the present tone and tenor on
Tweeters. The loss of dialogue by those folks will be missed.

Andy Stepniewski
Wapato WA


Andy Stepniewski
Wapato WA
----------
> From: Michael Price <mprice at mindlink.bc.ca>
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
> Subject: Re: Censorship vs Appropriate Rules of Conduct
> Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 9:14 PM
>
> Hi Tweets,
>
> Scott Richardson writes:
>
> >Janet Keen wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]
> >
> >I agree.
>
> Gee, wish I could. Soft censorship is part of what we called 'manners'
and
> imposed through training, hard censorship through overt authority. Yep,
> you're right: there's no clear dividing line separating them. What
> governments, religions and, more recently, corporations all have
understood
> is that if you can mold a person's language, you can control his or her
> thoughts and therefore behavior. Sometimes this has 'good' effects;
> historically, most times not.
>
> Somebody said a while back something about leaving the dreaded 'F-word'
> where it belongs. That's interesting, I thought; because in *real* life,
> that means just about everywhere else but this list: the schoolyards, the

> restaurants, sports, the jails, daily conversation between most of the
rest
> of us who don't have deep philosophical converse with plummy accents as
they
> do on Masterpiece Theater/Theatre, the streets, the parks, the homes,
most
> movies above the children's market, most books, most magazines, more and
> more newspapers, more TV, etc etc, just about everywhere, as I said
before,
> but church and some on Tweeters, wherein the first is too holy for such a

> slangword, and the second which seems intent on pretending it doesn't
exist
> except in some kind of white-trash hell.
>
> And what *is* it about this word which terrifies so? Because beneath the
> --depending on who's posting-- the smarming hypocrisy, the shuddering
> distaste, the flannelmouthing, the revulsion, the intellectualising, the
> bluster, there is the unmistakeable signs of unease and fear. Why is none
of
> my, or our, business. Only once in all this tempest on a ten-cent piece
have
> I seen an objection not bespeaking or suggesting an inner insecurity of
some
> kind or other, a voice of reason in all the blather. I still didn't
agree,
> but loved the fact it was reasonable and not based on prejudice or social

> class structure learned with mother's milk or father's cane or in the
> schoolyard.
>
> Gotta tell ya, I'm like Wallis: I use it all the time and neither have I
> become degenerate (dammit) nor has my language become a depraved,
> syphilitically paretic, drooling remnant of a once proud and shining
purity.
> Use it for all sorts of things, love, hate, anger, hanging-out,
exultation
> (whaddaya think, if I won a lottery I'm gonna jump around yelling
'Exultate!
> Jubilate!', do ya?).
>
> In spite of a hard-right Catholic upbringing that on pain of eternal and
> excruciating incineration in hell-- that's a real load to put on a kid--
> banned just about everything but kissing the Pope's ring ('Wear the big
one,
> JP, it get's 'em every time!' --where's Lenny when we need him?), I broke

> free of the programming, literally, *literally* looking at the sky for
> incoming lightning-bolts when my pals dared me to say it one summer
> afternoon out on the baseball diamond. Well, like most people, I said it,

> noticed I was still standing and said it again to make sure, and went
about
> the rest of my life.
>
> ...Corrupted by the guilt, the terror, the sometimes savage nightmares
> introduced by adult hypocrisy on swearing, and the actual beatings by
> teachers and priests incurred by my first tentative explorations of
> colloquial pungency. I still don't forgive them any of that.
>
> Brings me to my main point, then I'll shut up. What turns my stomach in
this
> discussion is the assumption of righteousness on the part of those who
want
> to censor our speech, whether under a Thou Shalt Not or the softer guises
of
> 'manners' or 'taste', or the pretence we in this list are too, too far
above
> it all to be so vulgar. Bullshit. In the light of the real, everyday
world
> outside this group--- and I'm disagreeing with friends here, I'll
stress--
> this I brand as hypocrisy, pure and simple. Don Baccus and I may have our

> disagreements, but I stand directly behind the serious intent of his
> hilariously intemperate, over-the-top screed (reading which, someone
> actually counted the number of times he used the word 'fuck' and gave us
the
> total and missed the very serious points of view in the posting by about
the
> same distance as between Paris and Moscow. Except for this posting, and
> those previous in this thread, I may never use the word 'fuck' or other
> deemed by some to be as or more offensive in posting to this mostly
adults'
> group myself, but by the bowels of Christ, don't tell me I can't or
> insinuate that I'm any less of a mature or decent person than I am for
> doing so.
>
> Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
> Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery, and change;
> mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
> Aphra Behn (1640-1689)
>
>