🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnHFHx.E97@reptiles.org> jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
 In article <barryCnGDHK.HJK@netcom.com>, Kenn Barry <barry@netcom.com> wrote:
>>	Jim, you are the whiniest loser posting on this whole topic, and
>>that's a fact. But "smear information" is cute, kind of a censor's
>>self-parody.

>some times there is such a thing as too many rights.

>if you want to be absolutely free, you will have to put up with chaos.

Oh dear, the old anarchy argument again. "Mobs running wild in the
streets !! Dogs and cats *living* together !!"

>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 ?

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>

>even non-banned info is enough to spook management into shutting things down.

>i think that by now the point has been made that you can't stop the flow
>of information across the electronic media.

>the problem is, there are a lot of people who are in control who don't
>fully realize that.

>hell, posting Cindy's Torment to some groups or mailing lists will get
>them shut down by paranoid management.

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.

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 !
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 !

What if I were to go around to every woman dressed in tight-ish jeans
and ask her (very politely of course) "Could you please not wear those
jeans in public ? It makes my wife think I'm staring at you and she
yells at me when we get home. As a matter of simple courtesy, could
you wear looser clothing ?" What do you think the reaction would be ?

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

"do us all favor
 get yourself a spine !"
	- the replacements

-- 

gwp@world.std.com