Editorial Policy?
or Censorship?
An unedited electronic discussion-decision by the Kairos
staff
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:28:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Hi all --
Time for another high-level decision ... censorship issues is the topic
of the day.
I'm reading through Nick's and Ted's e-mail exchange for the News section
which is *excellent* -- but it is e-mail and thus somewhat less ... formal
than we may be used to seeing in an academic journal. This is all fine with
me until I see Ted use the phrase, if I recall it correctly, "fucking
idiots."
Now, um, I'm not personally offended by the word. But there are two VERY
DISTINCT ISSUES we HAVE TO address here.
*one, obviously, is the use of the profanity. technically, after all, writing
that on the WWW is *illegal* and stepping over the line from writing it
out of frustration on our postings or homepage to including it in Kairos
is a BIG STEP.
*two, and I'm going to be very close to insisting here, but will listen
to counter-arguments ... since we are publishing this kind of strong opinion
in our *NEWS* section, and considering Corey's ideas in Utah, rightly so,
I think we have to have a statement in the journal -- not on the homepage,
but in each individual issue, maybe even in any individual website in question,
that clearly states:
The opinions expressed in the various pieces of webtext
published in Kairos, and included on nodes linked to and from the journal,
are not necessarily those of the journal staff, editorial board, or the
Alliance for Computers and Writing.
Is everyone agreeable to this? Too many times in my print-j days I saw
people get in trouble for slipping opinion into news ... and we're doing
it intentionally.
Corey? Anyone else?
Mick
(looking over his shoulder for NetCops)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:29:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: 'nother idea
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
should we include the editorial board in on the discussion about profanity/opinion
statements?
just a thought.
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 11:38:59 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Keep the language.
Put the disclaimer.
'nuff said
--
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague
=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 10:45:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Corey W Wick cwick@badlands.NoDak.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
At this point, even though I'm not offended by the word either, my first
impression is to edit it somehow. There are the legality concerns that Mick
mentioned, plus our ACW "sponsorship" that we should probably
consider. Considering Derrida's concept of trace, while it's technically
not there, it's still there. I'd like to forward it to the review board
to see thier ideas as well.
My first impression of the disclaimer satement, though, is negative. I don't
like the idea of stating the obvious just to meet protocol. But again, I'm
open to suggestions and think it would be a good issue to discuss with each
other as well as the edboard.
Corey
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:12:09 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
i think the idea of the karois statment saying it's not necessarily
our opinion is good. regarding the profanity--use it. partly b/c it's in
the news section and seems more "conversational" than a coverweb
or feature. partly b/c we're saying we want to give the authors as much
control as possible.
i think there's gratuitous profanity that's not pertinant to the content,
and i don't think that type should be in kairos.
others?
elizabeth
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:12:46 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: 'nother idea
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
include edboard in on profanity issue? no. this seems to be a staff
decision.
but i may be wrong.
elizabeth
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 11:25:51 -0600 (CST)
From: AMY HANSON ykfam@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
I personally don't care at all for the phrase "fucking idiots,"
but I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone. I think we have to consider our
position--we are trying to be a bridge between print and electronic journals,
and I don't think we should risk looking "less professional" (for
lack of a better word this morning) by just printing everything as is because
it's really cool otherwise.
The disclaimer is a good idea theoretically, but it only addresses the opinions.
We still have made the conscious decision to put profanity (which, as Mick
pointed out, is illegal on the web); thus, we're saying, we may not agree
with the opinions, but we will put those opinions in our journal no matter
what format they take. I don't think that's what we're trying to do here.
As for asking the EdBoard for opinions, I think we need to consider whether
we have time to do that. I think that this could be a very heated discussion,
and we don't really have time to listen to all sides of the issue. Eventually
(an actually that's a very soon eventually), we have to just make a decision,
so I think that for this particular piece, we should make the decision ourselves.
Then we might consider discussing a long-term disclaimer, etc. with the
board by beginning the discussion with the decision we made and why.
Amy
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 12:16:21 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Editor's Node?
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
after reading amy's comments i can see the other side. if we are trying
to be the bridge b/w academic and hypertext publishing, should we allow
that? this is very sticky b/c we are trying to please both sides of the
fense. this issue will force us to chose a side regarding this issue--be
more traditional or be more open. hmmmmm.....and is being more open mean
we accept that language?
eliz
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 13:59:54 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Editor's Node?
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
ELIZABETH PASS wrote:
> hmmmmm.....and is being more
> open mean we accept that language?
YES it does. That is the way people "talk" on-line. That is a
part of the discourse as much as any "academic" language. And,
it is not illegal to say "fucking" online (yet.) The ruling on
the (un)constitutionality of the Comm. Dec. act is not due out until either
tomorrow or next week, and I believe it will be struck down. Until then,
it is unenforcable.
By "editing" these words out WE ARE CENSORING the content of this
article, and who will take us seriously then. I say, we either run the article
AS IS or we do not run the article AT ALL.
You can guess which way I'll vote.
--
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague
=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 14:02:25 -0400
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
>i think there's gratuitous profanity that's not pertinant to the
content,
>and i don't think that type should be in kairos.
wouldn't this include the phrase 'fucking idiots'? i have to admit, that
reads as sort of gratuitous to me ....
i agree that we shouldn't ad -- opps, "omit" -- profanity across
the board, but i'd like to see a better reason than extreme emphasis.
ya think?
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 14:35:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: reply to Amy's comments
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Amy, I agree pretty much across the board with what you wrote. I would
*like* to include the edboard, but we don't have time to do so at this point.
I'd like to suggest, *for the time being*, that we include the disclaimer
and in (in)appropriate places we use tags like "[expletive deleted]
idiot"
Jason, I know you hate that idea. I can smell your disdain for it halfway
across the country! But there's a fine line between establishing what "cutting
edge" is and riding an ethos we don't really have yet into the ground.
Might we do the above for this issue and then open the discussion to our
editorial board after publication? We can always go back and change it ...
webbed writing t'aint immutable, 'course!
mick
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 13:24:54 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS ngpas@ttacs.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
yes, mick. but i wasn't planning on using that post in a journal. i
certainly never would refer to someone by that term in a journal. part of
a private list and email (as jason says) is the informality. in person,
i would've said that term. in a pen and paper letter i wouldn't. and for
publication....certainly not.
again, jason brings up interesting points. i think we're serving dual purpose
and undoubtedly issues like this and others will strain that balance.
eliz
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 16:34:39 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
ELIZABETH PASS wrote:
> > i certainly never would refer to someone by that term in a journal.
part of
> a private list and email (as jason says) is the informality. in person,
i
> would've said that term. in a pen and paper letter i wouldn't. and
for
> publication....certainly not.
>
BUT this is a journal about communication. If that is the way in which these
people communicated, who are we to arbitrarilly cover that up.
If this were an Anthropological journal, would we routinly delete or cover
up descriptions of mating habits?
The word "fucking" is a part of the vocabulary of the people we
are intersted in, and thus a relevent part of the article in question. It
is a part of "writing in webbed environments," whether we like
it or not.
--
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague
=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 00:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: Another editorial decision
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
1) we publish the fucking review, with the son-of-a-bitch curse words
in the shitty text if the authors don't fucking mind associating their name
with the shit.
2) on a more serious note, we should NEVER, EVER censor based on what we
might *fear* some thought-cop *might* not like. fuck 'em.
i really believe that if, in context, the use of profanity is appropriate
to the piece, it should go. if nick and ted want to use the words to express
the off-the-cuff roughness of their dialogue, let's go for it. i also think
it would be timid and a transparent move to cover our collective asses with
a disclaimer. screw the disclaimer. i'm ready to stand behind curse words
if used in context.
mike
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 00:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: reply to Amy's comments
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
if "[explative deleted]" appears in this journal, i will not be
able to continue working with you all. it runs "fucking idiots"
or not at all. i suggest we link "fucking idiots" that has our
debate linked to it -->
those [A HREF="fucking.html"]fucking idiots[/A]
_____
The staff feels it important to indicate that we discussed the appearance
of the phrase "fucking idiots" and while we question its effectiveness,
to edit it would immediately undermine our credibility ... "
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
i didn't mean to say i'd resign or anything if you all decided to CENSOR
this use of expletives, but i feel strongly that we should not, under any
circumstances, bow to unjust and illegal censorship imposed by poorly written
and untried law.
a censored journal is a useless journal.
mike
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Hey, Mike -
that's a far-freaking-fine idea. :)
No, I'm serious ...
let's code our discussion about this and link it to that word. AND, I think
(because this is a important issue worth forefronting a bit more, perhaps)
.... even include it as a staff-web in "Logging On" linked below
Mike's and Corey's contributions.
I will code it if everyone likes this idea. (I have all the messagess saved)
I think including the swear word is in many respects unprofessional; I think
I'm probably overreacting on one end and Mike and Jason (who are AGREEING,
someone take a picture!) are perhaps overreacting on the opposite part of
the spectrum.
But I *love* this idea. Showing our discussion. Letting the "code show
through the text," as it were.
This is something we might consider doing fairly reg'ly, even.
Do I hear any objections?
(And this is off the top of my head, so I recognize that any one of us seven
ought to be able to veto it outright.)
Mick
(who still wants an editorial release statement, Mike ...)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:34:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
statement: mick is hearby released from responsibility, but mike wants to
stand behind everything published. so sue the sicilian: we dare you.
how's that?
mike, losing sense of what's serious and what's not
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: what?
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
MikeS writes:
>a censored journal is a useless journal.
This is a slogan. As slogans go, it's pretty nice. But like most slogans,
it doesn't address the spectrum of the ideas involved.
Censorship = Bad. Okay, I buy that.
Editorial Decisions *can* = Censorship. But in most cases it is a matter
of careful judgment and considered ideas.
Deciding not to include something because it's either unprofessional or
illegal is *not* censorship. It is a carefully considered -- see our long
discussion here -- editorial decision, and eventually (for all publications
worth their salt) a stable, if changeable, policy.
If we decide to keep profanity in the journal because it can raise issues
worth discussing, then I can support it, though I will be uncomfortable
with it. If we decide to leave it in because "censorship is bad"
then we don't have the same understanding of the meaning of the word censorship.
This is about professionalism and audience awareness first, and about legal
issues second. It's not really *about* censorship. Point of fact: Ted doesn't
need the work "fucking" to make his point. It may be off-the-cuff
e-mail-style writing, but that doesn't mean it's automatically exempt from
consideration and *editing.*
Talking about the issue is *useful* whether we censor the word or not. In
fact, I want to include this extremely useful discussion as a link to the
journal even if it's off the phrase [expletive deleted] -- and don't think
having the link off the word or the replacement phrase changes the tenor
of the discussion but superficially.
I'd also like to ask Nick and Ted to comment, if everyone is amenable to
that??
Mick
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 01:38:27 -0400 From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
>mike, losing sense of what's serious and what's not
All of it is serious. And all of it is re-diculous!
But there's a lot going on here ...
:listens for subtext
Oh, and you can't resign. Who would keep conservative old me in line?
;)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 02:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
sub-text:
yes, my last message was a slogan. but i don't think we can ignore the fact
that the "communications decency act" expressly forbids the seven
words in the same simplistic, solopsistic, and patriarchal way george carlin
so masterfully ridicules *broacast* media censorship. i wouldn't be surprised
if ted's inclusion of expletives was a direct stab at the CDA. if we take
it out, we accept the authority of this bogus law.
i, for one, have real trouble justifying the removal of certain words based
on vague notions of "professionalism." as a working class scholar,
i have been conditioned to wonder about such off-the-cuff remarks and the
way i am *perceived* by my community -- and this community is tightly wound
about issues of appearance and propriety. expletives are a marker of my
speech. just as certain forms appear more often in different cultural dialects,
academic speech prohibits the use of expletives.
when i utter unprofessional expletives or show my resistance through their
use, my speech can be put aside (that is, marginalized) by the authorized
discourse of academe. but the problem doesn't end there. a law now exists,
a LAW for which, the law's authors claim, can get me in LEGAL trouble for
writing "fuck" *anywhere* on-line. and i think such an assertion
is untenable and dangerous.
it is the second instance, the question of LAW and LEGALITY, with which
i am concerned. and i think that by leaving this a question of "professionalism"
misses the mark and trivializes a set of problems and questions the instance
we are discussing introduces. do i think we should blankly publish "bad"
words? no. however, it is clear to me that we need to consider the reach
of our decision. if we decline this instance, have we accepted CDA as law?
i'm not ready or willing to accept CDA or to marginalize the very voices
that KAIROS is designed to share.
ted's voice is rough and no-nonsense on our professional composition-related
email lists. can we expect him to change for KAIROS? i certainly hope not.
i hope we value his voice as much in the authorized "published"
space of KAIROS as we do in ACW-L or MBU-L space or RhetNet. identity is
wrapped up in our utterances. if we remove the expletive, KAIROS becomes
a censorer. ted's voice becomes a meek voice of the academy (which it isn't
in uncensored list discussion), and his voice gets stripped of its cultural
markers.
i thought publishing in KAIROS was a means of sharing all kinds of marginalized
voices. we are particularly concerned with the work of hypertext scholars
and on-line scholarship. but shouldn't we consider how those voices are
represented? it is imperative to publish the voices of the net *as they
appear* on-line, warts and all. the question is how far do we take this
ideal, this *slogan*, for online discourse. i, for one, am willing to take
it as far as it will go -- and beyond if we need to test the limits of academic
publishing.
mike
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 13:45:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Corey W Wick cwick@badlands.NoDak.edu
Subject: Re: *&^%$#@!
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Like Mike and Jason (and perhaps most of us), I am adamantly opposed to
censorship in any form, and it troubles me to be taking part of a decision
of whether or not to exercise this injustice in our journal. I think it's
important for me to make this principle clear.
But I see this issue as one of priority as much as principle. I've had friends
and colleagues who stood up for their principles at all times, never backing
down from a fight. While this is admirable, it seems that this approach
also impeded their progress in achieving their top priorities. There are
only 86,400 seconds in a day, which is not enough time to fight each and
every battle we encounter, making it important to choose what, when, and
where we'll fight.
I think battling censorship is important to us all, but I think a higher
priority is to establish _Kairos_ and similar online publications as validated
forms of scholarship, journals where published authors receive the credit
toward promotion and tenure they so rightly deserve.
I agree that keeping "fucking hypocrites" takes a stand against
censorship (a stand I support), but I think doing so threatens our progress
toward a more immediate goal. While I, too, disagree with the interpretation
of "professional" held by the academy's wielders of power, I think
we need to consider that interpretation as we pursue the validation of _Kairos_
as a respected academic journal.
I don't think fighting both battles is the most effective rhetorical strategy
at this time. I fear it would result in gaining a step toward one goal while
losing a step toward another. We'll beat the thought police--we'll "whip
'em good" as my daddy used to say. But I think we should wait until
the _Kairos_ is right, when we can deal with greater focus and greater force,
when we have a better chance of moving forward than breaking even.
I say we keep the link to the discussion but insert "expletive"
or some other euphemism, preferably something that leaves a trace of the
original content. I am still vehemently opposed to the disclaimer, though.
Either way, though, we need to decide soon. Maybe we can do a follow up
in the news section (after all, everything is news ;-) in 1.3 or beyond.
Corey
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:22:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael J. Salvo" salvo@binghamton.edu
Subject: fucking idiots Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
i see corey's point. however, any damage that could be done to K's ethos
would be deflected by including the link to our discussion. i see no reason
to replace [fucking] with [your favorite expletive here] or even [f*cking
idiots].
mike (hey, people keep giving me money for my cruddy furniture! what a concept.
i'm getting like a dime on the dollar, though ;-)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:48:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Corey W Wick cwick@badlands.NoDak.edu
Subject: Re: fucking idiots
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Michael J. Salvo wrote:
> i see corey's point. however, any damage that could be done to K's
ethos
> would be deflected by including the link to our discussion. i see no
> reason to replace [fucking] with [your favorite expletive here] or
even
> [f*cking idiots].
Yes, I thought of this while I composed that post. I was going to develop
a point distinguishing between a *published* news feature and a link to
our discussion of the censorship issue (even though it may be a very fine
line, or perhaps no line at all). I was thinking this would be a way to
illustrate that I take professional protocol seriously regarding the "contents"
of our journal while I express my views in a slighlty less "formal,"
more tangential discussion. Granted both really are "published,"
but I felt linking to our discussion was different than publishing a News
Feature. Having voiced my position, I'm willing to concede leaving "fucking"
the way it is, although I do think that a link on "f*cking idiots"
is an equally effective way of calling attention to the censorship issue.
Even though "fucking" is not there, we know what the euphamism
refers to and therefore, "fucking" is still there. I think it
makes a point about the futility/absurdity of blind censorship.
Anyway, I'll end again with prioritizing. I can live with the raw text or
with some form of obvious euphamism. But I think it important that we decide
quickly and move on to production. I've spent a lot of time on the censorship
issue this morning, thus taking me away from more pressing duties.
I vote for "f*cking," but I won't appeal to Bob Dole or President
Clinton if I'm outnumbered.
Off to grab some lunch.
: drools chicken nuggets
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 17:18:56 -0600 (CST)
From: ELIZABETH PASS NGPAS@ttacs1.ttu.edu
Subject: Re: expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
mick--i think we need to come to a consensus about where we stand on
this issue, at least for the time being. it seems we're leaning toward leaving
the expletive and linking the discussion to it. as it stands now:
leave in expletive w/ link--mike, mick, jason, elizabeth
leave in partial expletive w/ link--corey
leave out expletive (w/ link? w/o link?)--amy
greg?--don't recall where he stands
everyone, is this correct? has your opinion changed since the time you posted?
does something need to be clarified? can we come to a consensus before this
issue, or does mick need to make an editorial decision or we take a vote?
i just want to make sure that mick or anyone else doesn't write nick and
ted saying what we're going to do w/o everyone feeling liked they've voiced
their opinion and the issue (for the time being) is settled. mick also needs
to knowa decision on the way this is going to go fairly quickly so he can
write to them and/or we can prepare the discussion to the link if that's
what we're going to do.
what kind of consensus can we come to? are we ready to make a decision?
elizabeth
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 12:54:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Subject: Expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Eliz,
thank you *very* much for collecting that info all into one place. I think
it's pretty representative of what I was understanding, with the exception
that my POV is not to leave the word in, but to leave a "version"
in (as per Corey).
As you can see from an earlier post today, I did write Nick and Ted about
a few other things, and mentioned that we were discussing the issue, and
possibly putting our discussion online. I didn't want to surprise them with
it on Sunday or Monday, and figured this way they would A) think about it
and B) if we do nothing, it's no big deal but C) if we do they've had time
to think about it!
So they know that the discussion is happening, but that no decision has
been made.
If -- *IF* -- I had to make a temporary unilateral decision, it would be
this:
*code the discussion and link it -- including the interesting post Nick
just wrote and perhaps anything Ted might send later.
*include a disclaimer as per the one I mentioned two days ago (I really
think we need to have this either way; will anyone picket the staff meetings
if we include one?)
*using a phrase like "F*cking" which is more obvious than yet doesn't *quite* cross some of the lines tradition has drawn,
and link that to our discussion.
*initiate a edboard discussion based on their reading of our coded text
so we can have a policy (even if that policy is the decision to not have
a policy) online for 1.3 ...
That's what *I* would do. That is not an "editorial decision"
-- it's a suggestion. Perhaps even a motion. Amendments? Comments?
Mick D-
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 13:49:14 -0400
From: Jason Teague mailto:endless@nando.net
Subject: Re: Expletives
Reply-to:kairosed@cfcc.net
M. Doherty wrote:
> *using a phrase like "F*cking" which is more obvious than
> deleted> yet doesn't *quite* cross some of the lines
tradition has drawn,
> and link that to our discussion.
Actually Mick the consensus seems to be to leave the word intact with the
link to an explination. Are you making an exec. decision. If so, I thiink
it's clear that I will disagree with this decision. My personal opinion
is that using "F*cking" is a kinda' lame way out. It looks like
we didn't have the nerve to go one way or the other.
--
--
--
--- Jason Conrad Teague
=================================
endless@nando.net
---------------------------------
An Autobiography of a Digital Man
http://www.rpi.edu/~teaguj
=================================
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 14:02:38 -0400
From: Mick Doherty mdohert@bgnet.bgsu.ed
Subject: Re: expletives
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Actually, Jason, I don't think there's been any kind of consensus. Elizabeth
mildly misplaced me on her list, which looks like this:
*leave in expletive w/ link - elizabeth, jason, mike
*leave in partial expletive w/ link -- corey, mick
*leave out expletive - amy (no word yet on the link)
*no opinion offered/unavailable -- greg
and like i said, that was not an executive decision. i just wanted to explicitly
state what my position was.
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 08:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nick Carbone nickc@marlboro.edu
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
Mick Doherty wrote (to Nick Carbone and Ted Nellen):
> Finally -- here's the big one -- Nick and Ted, the K-staff has been
> having a dandy of a discussion on our list about Ted's choice of
> adjectives in his first full posting. We are considering actually
> publishing a coded portion of that commentary in our LoggingOn section,
> re: the use of language and expletives in professional space, and the
> fine line between editorial policy and censorship in these CDA-driven
>days.
> If we decide to do that, and when it is coded, it's linked directly
to the
> prhase "fucking hypocrites" from your work, as well ... and
perhaps you'd
> even be willing to add to the discussion after you take a gander.
>
> I like the piece. It's an exciting new way to think about "News"
...
Interesting...I didn't edit the e-mail messages, let them stand as they
were except for minor things that just seemed unclear. Should we dress up
frank prose? It struck me as pretty powerful in that Ted worked more closely
with conference documents and in citing news and journal articles surrounding
the issue. In that sense he was more scholarly. The 'fucking hypocrites'
is the voice, I think, of an exasperated classroom high school teacher whose
daily reality and academic conditions the conference ignored. There was
a lot of hostility to teachers in the conferences proceedings; especially
to teachers' unions, but the two terms are blurred.
In a way the term is a punch--a direct rhetorical blow at governors. It's
a departure from academic discourse which likes to hide its violence; but
given the nature of the exchange we had, and the fluidity of e-mail, which
is what we want to in part capture, I think it's worth leaving and discussing.
Does it cheapen debate? Would it have happened in a traditional academic
setting, say a round table discussion at a conference? Good questions and
worth considering.
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 00:22:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Nellen tnellen@mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us
Subject: Re: Nick & Ted
Reply-to: kairosed@cfcc.net
On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Nick Carbone wrote:
> Does it cheapen debate? Would it have happened in a traditional academic
> setting, say a round table discussion at a conference? Good questions
> and worth considering.
When I wrote that I wondered about it. I sent it, because it fit with the
sentence before it and Nick said it best when he just explained it as a
part of the frustration I experience in my job. I know it may offend many
of your readers and it may detract from the rest of the dialogue. I will
defer to your decision. Since I wrote it and obviously think it belongs,
I would prefer that; however, I do understand the argument from the other
side and will live with wither decision. No big thing. I just hope it doesn't
detract from the rest of the dialogue. If you believe, Mick, knowing your
readership better than I, that phrase will compromise the article then protest
the integrity of the magazine and the article first. I like Nick's argument
for its inclusion. It is crude, but then so the summit crude from my point
of view. I would like to hear how the staff argued. It may shed light on
the dilemma.
Cheers, __o
_-\_
Ted 8-) (_)/(_)
http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us
http://www.dorsai.org/~tnellen
Ted heard how the staff argued; now so have you. What
do you think?
Kairos: A Journal for Teachers
of Writing in Webbed Environments.
Vol. 1 No. 2 Summer 1996