(Logo and goto: Prof. Timo Salmi, Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Vaasa, Finland)
 
<http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/abusive.html>
Copyright © 1990-2013 by Prof. Timo Salmi    
Last modified Mon 11-Mar-2013 08:01:23
      (Visits counter image) Counting since 1.11.2005
Prof. Timo Salmi [Offline. For maintenance only.] Prof. Timo Salmi To the home page of the department Accounting and Finance [Offline. For maintenance only.] The home page of the department Accounting and Finance To the home page of the University of Vaasa, Finland [Offline. For maintenance only.] WWW root level Timo on Facebook Timo Salmi on Twitter
(FAQ)  

How should I react to abusive postings or email?

(!#&?%)

Originally from
ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqn.zip
Questions from Usenet and Timo's answers

There are so many different kinds of abusive or otherwise unacceptable behavior on the Internet that they are dealt separately in the other parts of my FAQ collection, even if the borderline between the different situations not always is a clear one. Those include: But on with the current subject: One category of problematic net behavior is overly aggressive or abusive postings or email. These are often written in the heat of the moment, or under the influence. Or they may result from outright misunderstandings, because email and Usenet news are not an easy media for conveying subtleties. Also remember that Usenet is an international net, and not everyone is fluent in English. On top of that, there are cultural differences in expressing wishes and views. (For example, I've noticed that email from one cultural background tends to be more abrupt than average, while another sometimes seems to be lacking in consideration in asking services from others, a third is prone to excessive courtesy and convolution, and so on). Or someone may have a completely different sense of humor from yours. Or someone may take friendly advice or guidance as a flame.
 
The reasons for angry postings can be many, and the only solid deduction that can be drawn from a single abusive posting is that someone has truly bad manners or a totally off-key day. The best way to react is either to reply politely and only with solid facts, or not to reply at all. There is no sense in responding in the same manner, and being just another jerk. The surest way to look like a fool is to let oneself be drawn into a protracted argument with another fool. Best to break free if you detect this happening to you.
 
What if someone continues to post to the Usenet news in a language that offends you? The best action is simply not to read any postings from that person. Most newsreader programs have what is called a kill file or a message filter, where you can specify which subjects or persons you wish to ignore. For example, if you are using an rn-family newsreader program, see killfile.zip and tspost17.zip  item "Re: A kill file example". Also see the links at the end of this page.
 
Unfortunately, I do not have complete information for you on killfiling with other newsreading programs. However, the more recent versions of WWW browsers' newsreading modules have a "Keywords: Newsgroups -> Set Preferences -> Filtering" type of a sequence. Search for such a sequence. E.g. in Netscape select "Communicator -> Newsgroups", then "Edit -> Message Filters". In Outlook Express look for the blocked senders list. In Mozilla or Thunderbird choose View | Messages | Customize and so on. Furthermore, there are even generic filter programs such as nfilter : A Client-side Usenet News Filter" (never tried it, and the standard disclaimers apply).
 
Speaking more generally than just about offensive postings, I would like to put forward here that unless you are seriously involved with the maintenance of the relevant newsgroup, if you do not like someone's posting habits, you should primarily consider the option of using the kill file. Express your views by all means, but long-standing Usenet experience tells that attacking will not achieve anything. Rather it may be counter-productive and can just lead to what is called a flame-war. What to do if an abusive individual persists sending you one unwelcome message after another, or keeps on harassing you in some other way. Persisting cases are perhaps best tackled by overcoming your curiosity and just deleting unread all the email and postings from that address. I apply this method myself when necessary. This operation can be automated by an appropriate email filter such as procmail .
 
Another understandable, but problematic situation is when one gets flamed for something one didn't say or do. This sometimes happens e.g. when one quotes in the news an offensive posting, and consequently someone confuses who said what. For example one of my perfectly neutral postings included a quote from a third person castigating American freedom in an obviously unfriendly fashion. In consequence I got a rather indignant message from a reader who mistook the quote as my opinion. We finally sorted it out to a friendly conclusion, but much unnecessary effort was involved. The general lesson is to be careful not to confuse the original poster, and the person who is replying to the posting. Another related problem: It unfortunately happens relatively often that when e.g. I answer a question in the news, someone emails a reply to the original question mistakenly to me, not to the original poster where the reply should have gone (but it is even better to post to the newsgroup). I do not mind, but the problem is that the original poser of the question misses the potentially useful reply.
 
As an archive site moderator getting much email, and having been quite active on the Usenet news I am exposed to the possibility of overly aggressive behavior even more than the average user. Therefore I store the addresses of the intentionally offensive and hostile individuals for future reference in order to be able to try to steer clear of such troublesome individuals. It is thoroughly frustrating that when one tries to help e.g. by giving information on the usages of a newsgroup or a pointer to a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), as a result one gets hostile feedback, or even worse a message that has been devised with the sole intention of heaping deliberate insults. For example, I was targeted in 1995 by a mentally ill Canadian former SFU student. If you get likewise stalked, make yourself unavailable to the stalker. Persist! Even if it may take years, eventually, he'll give up.
There is a special, related category of Usenet news behavior which can escalate into a real problem. You might encounter a user who is more interested in picking up a fight with you rather than genuinely discussing or even arguing about the actual subject. This is not a case of a simple disagreement, which, of course, are common on the Usenet news. Rather, the troublemaker will be looking for any angle to attack you. Nothing that you say or do will satisfy such an attacker. Typically, he'll come up with one fault-finding point after another about you and your activities. At the same time the pathological fault-finder will try to bait you deeper into parrying with him by inventing one antagonist point after another, calculatingly twisting what you say and deliberately distorting the facts at will. Be very alert to this tell-tale pattern! Any poster might be targeted, but an active member of the newsgroup or/and in a known position is a likely target.
 
What to do if you are targeted? Most importantly, recognize the situation. Don't let yourself be drawn in. Nothing constructive will result. The most sensible thing is to totally withdraw from any further discussion if the early warning signs show that such a risk might exist. Better safe than sorry. There are so many users currently on the net that one is compelled to avoid some the most troublesome cases by ignoring them. The news kill files and email filters are very useful automated aids in shutting off the pathological troublemaker.
 
There is a strange Usenet news variation of the theme. There are posters on who get their kicks of disagreeing with anything and everything. Usually these individuals are rather pathetic than abusive. In fact, most often they do not actually violate the netiquette. They simply are playing a game of intellectual dishonesty. Just ignore them since no amount of relevant facts will ever sway them.
 
Turning things on their head in an argument and/or coming up with bizarre claims unfortunately are not uncommon on the Usenet news scene. And/or someone tries to draw you in by putting disadvantageous words into your mouth suckering you into responding because of a compelling need to rectify. Even when it is not outright trolling , such tactics are a close relative. They are very alluring in the sense that it is not easy to refrain from being drawn in by wanting to counter the absurd. However, with time one learns to recognize the tell-tale signs of such escalating situations. It is useful to draw for oneself a strict line when it is high time to withdraw from the non-productive exchanges. And, if one finds it difficult to resist the temptation of responding, one good option is to use killfiling in good time.
In a much milder vein, carefully consider when it is the time to withdraw from any exchange, whether it is abusive or not. My own acid test is that if I have to start repeating the same arguments which I already have elaborated it is time to exit. It is very rare that if you have to start repeating yourself, the other party is willing to see your point.
There are several ways in which some Usenet users try to gain undeserved attention. Commonly, they involve creating a self-induced controversy, and then trying to escalate by suckering others in and subsequently capitalizing on the responses in endless circles. A typical feature of this approach is intellectual dishonesty. It is very common that the perpetrator ignores the facts, fabricates his/her own, quotes out of context, and generally fails the rudiments of decent discussion.
 
Another approach to undeserved fame (read notoriety) is what I call leeching. In leeching a pest from total obscurity seeks instant recognition or gratification by attacking well-know net citizen(s) or organization(s). Basically, this approach has the same roots as outside the net the much more sinister attacks (sometimes even physical) especially on prominent politicians or other public figures.
 
Yet another, pitiful variety of these themes are the obscure third parties who latch themselves on the bandwagon in such controversies as their way to, again unmerited, fame.
 
The only sensible approach in cases like these is total avoidance using news killfiling and email filtering. Responding to the goading will only make matters worse and is exactly what these net-abuse methods strive on.
On the Usenet news it has become a common (bad) habit of some users, when they disagree with the other party, to get personally invasive trying to insinuate that there is something wrong with the opponent's life. These straw-reaching quips are warning signs to walk away from. Typically, they involve e.g.
Some writers on the Usenet news, who often are also otherwise abusive or at least abrasive, deliberately develop some superficially innocuous quirks to try annoy and bait the other readers into reacting. Some of these minor irritations include calculated misspelling, ignoring all punctuation rules, omitting capitalizations, starting one's own text within the quotations, writing in an aggressively colloquial parlance, and sundry. This defiance is all part of their flamebaiting game to attract unmerited attention. Again, don't oblige.
(Links)  

[To Timo's FAQ materials index page ]
 
[ts(ät)uwasa.fi ] [Photo ] [Programs ] [FAQs ] [Research ] [Lectures ] [Acc&Fin ] [Faculty ] [University ]
 
[Revalidate] C:\_G\WWW\~TS\HTTP\ABUSIVE.HTM