🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GWP.94Mar30134728@world.std.com>,
Gilbert W Pilz <gwp@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <CnHFHx.E97@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
>>it is commonly accepted that in a truely free environment, you can do whatever
>>you want so long as it does not have detrimental effects on others.
>
>>intentionally punting holmonka info into ontario is detrimental to people
>>in ontario.
>
>So why don't you direct your anger at the people and institutions that
>are *causing* this detriment !? Namely your government, your bonehead
>management, and your spineless sysops ?

but the government is not *causing* this detriment.

if pinheads would respect the law (even if it is stupid) and stop inflaming
our bonehead management, the sysadmins could do their jobs without having
to risk losing their jobs.

if you have a beef with the law, you change it.  don't force others to fight
your battle for you.

as far as "spineless sysops" goes.  who is the spineless one?

the sysadmin who bows under in order to keep the systems running for the 
99% of the users who could care less about the ban, or the pinheads that
continue to make noise about the grave injustice done by the government by
not letting them get their daily dose of hideous murder descriptions?

i'd say the spineless ones are those who fool themselves into thinking that
they are doing battle with the ontario government by posting "banned" info
into newsgroups.

they are spineless because they can sit miles away, stir up shit, and not
have to worry about getting any on themselves.

please, if you want to be active, why not use the fax service at
chicken.planet.org to fax the FAQ to the Attorney General every day.

that would have a more serious impact, then senselessly posting the FAQ to
newgroups, where they get turned off by paranoid management, who, by the way
are not interested one way or the other about changing the law, they just
want to keep the systems running.

>You're behaving like a little kid who gets beat up for wearing funny
>looking clothes to school. Instead of getting mad at the bully for
>beating you up, you get mad at your parents for dressing you funny !!
>You're taking the bullies side in this argument. You're buying into
>the idea that bullies have a *right* to beat on you and therefore it's
>your parents fault for giving them a reason. <uh, oh ! . . here come
>the analogy cops . . I'd better cool it>

nope, it is more like the little kid who gets beat up because of something
their parents did.  the little kid has little control over what his parents
do, so what can he do.

if the bullies have a beef with my parents, they should take it out on them,
not me.

>I am not in "control" of the actions of your government, manager, or
>sysop. I am not going to censor myself in an effort to prevent them
>from doing something stupid to you. I have no idea of what may or may
>not set them off and, frankly, I don't have the time to worry about
>it. It's not my responsbility.

i'm not asking you to censor yourself, i'm asking you to think about
what you are posting, and why you are posting.

if you think this is censorship, you are pretty stupid.

>If this sort of behavior bothers you then it is up to *you* to vote
>with *your* feet. Get a different news feed, go work for another
>company, transfer to another school, fix your *own* damn problem !

i, and many others, are thinking about doing just that.

the signal to noise ratio on netnews has turned it into a free for all.
it has gotten to the point where we can no longer justify reading news, because
the time it takes to filter the crap out is grossly larger than the benefit
of what little we eventually read.

i run my own system, i am both the sysadmin and the management.
i have not shut any groups down, nor deleted any files.
i don't intend to.

but my inaction is not an act of rebellion against the ban, i just don't have
the time to look for the stuff.

my beefs here are an expression of what many of those "spineless" sysadmins
want to say.

i'm not saying the ban is right or wrong, or that we should or should not
censor news.

i'm saying that using netnews as some kind of weapon against the ban is
pointless.  it will make no real difference to the government.

the only thing it accomplishes is the shutdown of news at various sites.

it is very cowardly of the FOI zealots to trample all over the netnews reading
rights of others, just to make their point.

>Don't ask *us* to censor *our* output because you don't have the guts
>or the energy to free yourself from an oppressive situation. Just
>about anything anybody says is going to upset some pinhead somewhere.
>Should we all sit around and talk about the weather as a common
>curtesy to all the schmucks out there who work for pin-heads ? Fuck
>NO ! Don't work for pin-heads if you don't like abiding by pin-headed
>decisions !

i've made that decision in the past, and am not afraid to do it again.

other sysadmins are probably not that lucky.  they need their jobs.

you expect others to go through hardship so your life can be better?
why don't you take on some of the hardship?

>I find such behavior to be both *extremely* rude and unconscionably
>*selfish*. Restrict my behaviour to make your life easier !? Right.

you expect sysadmins to quit their jobs just to make your life easier?

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416 506-0654 ]
[   "... or you can become a road-kill on the information superhighway."      ]
[                                   -- Colin Mcgregor                         ]