rec.autos.simulators

Consider that you're having your final interview for a new job that you're
really hopeful of securing. Ask yourself if you would use the language
you're considering in that situation. If the answer is no, it's likely that
you suspect that the interviewer might find it offensive.

Use the same test whenever you're in public or interacting with people whose
taste may not mirror yours. Better yet, elevate your own standard of speech
by applying such a test all the time! I've never understood why so many
people choose to maintain two separate standards of speech. And I've never
tolerated people who were so self-centered as to conduct themselves in a
manner that is oblivious to the feelings of others.

Thanks, John, for saying that which needs to be said by more people more
often! Well put!

Jack Rambo

www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

I guess that you are both correct according the the definition that I am
most familiar with: "I don't know how to define, but I know it when I see
it." That was said by some learned Supreme Court justice. So I guess if you
find it offensive and ***, it is.

I will again point out, however, that the most generally *** statement
(a reference to an insestuous *** act) in my post was PASTED from an
E-mail that was sent to my home, and cannot be construed to represent my
preferred level of discourse. Perhaps poor judgement on my part, as was my
reply to this coward, but I tend to "give as good [or bad] as I get." You
will both notice that your non-profane and (somewhat) respectful posts
received non-profane and (somewhat) respectful replys from me.

Now, quoting Mr. Rambo:

"I've never understood why so many

I don't mean to be petty or abusive here, but little of the world is based
on the limits of any one person's understanding. I heard many of these
"lower standard" words for the first time from my father, who has worked
hard all his life in a stressful environment where such language is
commonplace. Perhaps others had some different influence in life who was a
calmer person (I'm not implying any less hard-working), perhaps more
outwardly religious.

"I've never

I suppose rage can in some cases be a function of ego-centricity. But I'm
more concerned with the implications of a "refusal to tolerate" behavior
that is not illegal. If one hears someone use a curseword in public do you
merely shun that person, or do you feel it is your right to physically
*** that person? Or perhaps the middle ground, as you have done here,
speak up and say you would prefer not to hear such talk in your presence.
Can I decide that there are a few words that I don't like to hear, and start
insisting that everyone comply with my wishes? That really would be
self-centered.

Enough of trying to dig myself out of this hole, you are both 100% correct
on the fundamental issue: It is better all-around policy to conduct yourself
in a calm, rational, and polite manner all the time. Whether for
moral/religious reasons (more likely to go to Heaven), or for Machiavellian
reasons (more likely to get what you want).

I just don't like do be told what I can and cannot say, barring threats and
slander. Now I think I'll go look at some ***ography...
W Spilman

PS:        Quoting Mr. Williams:

                "Internet anonymity can be very liberating can't it?"

                Perhaps I cannot be proud of the way I have conducted
                myself in this forum, but I am proud of the fact that I have
                sent NO correspondence on the internet anonyomously.
                That is my real name. Mr Rambo?

E-mail...<

The fact that someone else originated the material hardly granted you carte
blanche to run with it! Again, try the test that I described. Would you walk
into that important interview and start repeating the stuff this other guy
wrote? Of course not.

calmer person (I'm not implying any less hard-working), perhaps more
outwardly religious.<

Perhaps we had influences that taught us to respect the rights of others. In
this case, the right of others not to be bombarded with material that many
find objectionable in this most public of forums. Religion has absolutely
nothing to do with it. It's merely common courtesy and decency.

feel it is your right to physically *** that person?<

From where is this coming? Perhaps you're confusing me with my namesake.
Yes, contrary to your suggestion, the real name is Rambo and, though I'm
called Jack, it's even John Rambo, in fact. My lack of tolerance takes the
form of, for example, being completely unreluctant to ask a loud, vulgar
party at a nice restaurant to tone it down a bit if I, my wife, or anyone
else finds it objectionable.

for Machiavellian reasons (more likely to get what you want).<

Moral, religious, Machiavellian? Could it just possibly be something as
simple as showing respect for your fellow man? I think so.

Jack Rambo

www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

[Fair comments snipped]

By anonymity I guess I mostly meant the tendency for email to dilute the
self-consciousness we feel in face to face conversation.  

Most people find it much easier to speak their mind if they are somehow
obscured from the listener.  The example of a confession booth in a
church springs to mind.  Or talk-back on the radio.

I agree that bogus or anonymous email addresses (not to be confused with
valid, traceable aliases) are pretty lame, though some might consider
their use essential.

Happily, I think this thread is drawing to a close.   :-)

John