Subject: What to do about abusive messages

11. *****
 Q: How should I react to abusive email or postings?

 A: There is one further category of problematic net behavior to
point out, that 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 this is 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 abrupt, 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 (an extremely common problem for an active FTP site
moderator like yours truly). 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, or
not to reply at all. (There is no sense in responding in the same
manner, and being just another jerk).
   Other, related problems can also occur. I'll give you an example
concerning incompatible humor. I have a predilection for trying to
come up with puns in English. This is not always appreciated. There
was a discussion in the news.groups demanding why an infertility
group had not passed in the news. I just couldn't resist the
temptation, and remarked that perhaps it was because the idea was
barren :-). One user obviously had real personal strife with
infertility, and told me to shove the Smiley, you know where, in as
many words.
   To give another example, here is a counter-xenophobic joke
guaranteed to bring flames crashing in from some US users. "There
was this American who was asked wasn't he ever annoyed by the fact
that he didn't really have a language of his very own but had to
speak English. The reply. If English was good enough for Jesus, it's
certainly good enough for me." Seriously, though. Although it is
fortunately very rare, sometimes one encounters netters from the US,
who do not seem to be able quite to grasp the international nature
of the Internet. This is perhaps because the U.S. scene alone is so
extensive.
   Here is a story of a case of mutual misunderstanding turning out
right. I sent a note to a user who posted test messages to a
discussion newsgroup, and told him that he shouldn't, and pointed
out that there are special newsgroups just for testing purposes. I
got a very testy (pardon the pun) reply referring to my attitude as
smart-ass. But we started discussing about it, and soon noticed
that: 1) he had misread my intentions, 2) that my message was badly
formulated and gave rise to the possibility of taking it just as an
impolite flame. What happened was that we together worked out a
better formulation for my prerecorded advice on test post (see item
#17), and we both benefited from the process, and enjoyed it.
   If someone continues to post to the Usenet news in a language
that offends you, perhaps the best action is simply not to read any
postings from that person. Most newsreader programs have what is
called a kill file, where you can specify which subjects or persons
you wish to ignore. (See ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/doc-net/
killfile.zip and /pc/pd2/tspost17.zip item "Re: A kill file
example".)
   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 the 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 just
deleting _unread_ all the email and postings from that address. I
apply this method myself. This operation can, in fact, be automated
by an elm email filter. A system I can, and do employ myself if and
when necessary. If you wish to know more of this option, try on your
Unix system "man filter" or ask your local computer support person.
   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 more general lesson from the last item above is to be careful
not to confuse the original poster, and the person who is replying
to the posting. It unfortunately happens relatively often that when
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 be directed. I do not mind, but the problem is that
the original poser of the question misses the potentially useful
reply. And I have been guilty of a similar mistake myself a couple
of times.
   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 have myself been targeted by a
mentally ill Canadian former SFU student, who desperately has been
trying to get at me with inane postings and abusive file uploads
whenever he manages to get a new, forged user-id. Fortunately, I
have the necessary skills to firewall him automatically, but such a
system originally takes some work to set up.

 A2: There is a special, related category of net 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. Typically,
nothing that you will say or do will satisfy such a troublemaker. It
is not a simple disagreement, which, of course, are common on the
Usenet news. Rather, he will be looking for any angle to attack you.
Be wary of this tell-tale sign. 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? Difficult to say, but 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 trying
to ignore them. The news kill files and email filters can be very
useful automated aids shutting them off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------