🚀 go-pugleaf

aga (aga@dhp.com) spewed forth:
> On 26 Jul 1996, Pee Kitty wrote:

> > aga (aga@dhp.com) spewed forth:
> > > John, Freedom of speech allows you to go to the public park and
> > > speak your piece.  the 'public park' of cyberspace is usenet.
> > 
> > > but freedom of speech does not allow you to come into my living room
> > > without permission, and say nasty things that I "must" listen to, because
> > > I am a quasi "captive audience."  e-mail is the same as my living room.
> > 
> > No, email is the same as your MAILBOX. 

> You misplace your analysis here, pee. It is not the 'living room'
> or the 'mailbox' that counts, but the INTENT of the sender.
> that sender KNEW that nobody wanted to read his vulgar shit, and
> he sent it with the INTENT to harass.

You weren't talking about INTENT. YOU were talking about AUDIENCE. Let's
not switch the subject JUST YET, okay? You said "I am a quasi captive
audience" because "email is the same as my living room" and that's 100%
bullshit. You are NOT a 'quasi captive' (whatever the hell that little bit
of word-wrangling means) audience...you are a voluntary one. The SECOND
you realize you're reading something you don't want to read, you can stop
reading. At any time. It's 100% up to you. That FIRST SECOND OR TWO of
being offended is the fault of the person who sent it to you. Every second
after that is YOUR FAULT for continuing to read the letter.

> > Open the letter, read the first few
> > lines, and throw it in the circular file if it displeases you. 

> hey pee baby... did YOU get the letter? did you read that entire
> perverted rape-murder story?  could you not tell that the author was
> a very sick and dangerous person?

Nope. Didn't get it. Don't have to; I'm perfectly willing to accept your
word that it was a SICK, DISGUSTING, VILE, OFFENSIVE letter that should
earn the author a long stay in the hell of his choice. Not that you are,
but don't try to play this like I'm DEFENDING THAT PERSON'S ACTIONS. I'm
not. I'm only bringing some common sense into this inflamed discussion.

> > Threatening
> > or dangerous (e.g., letterbomb or poison-ivy-coated) letters are another
> > matter, but offensive ones? 

> "offensive ones" must have a WARNING!  I sent that to one of my
> mailing lists that deals with e-mail enforcement, and a lady wrote
> me back and said I should have "warned her," so it was a VERY offensive
> piece of e-mail, and it WAS intentionally sent by the e-mailer 
> apparently hundreds of times.

If you go onto the net, expecting to NEVER BE OFFENDED or to be WARNED
before you might be offended, every time, you're delusional. The great
thing about the net is that you're NEVER FORCED TO READ ANYTHING, EVER.
If something offends you, you can just stop reading it.

> > If my family was killed on a plane crash, and
> > I'm DEEPLY offended by some airline sending me an ad for their new low
> > rates, can I have the airline arrested? If you send me a letter about your
> > new slaughterhouse and I'm a strict vegan (and am now quite offended), can
> > I have you arrested?

> no, no INTENT to offend in either case.

How do you know the letter about the slaughterhouse wasn't intended as
offensive? How do you know someone's intent? Why should intent matter?

> > Hell, I dunno...maybe I *can*. If so, it just goes to show what a FUCKED
> > UP WORLD we live in. 

> hey Pee Kitty baby, we draw the line right here.

Okay, whatever that means.

> I would like some ladies to respond to you...

That's nice.

> > --> You can fight the Conspiracy of Normalcy and get back your Slack!
> > --> Send $1 to Church of the SubGenius / PO Box 140306 / Dallas TX 75214
> > --> Or visit alt.slack or FTP to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty for info
> > 
> > "Why spend $30 or even $40 dollars for a filthy porno movie when you can
> > jerk off all over the Church of the SubGenius for only $30 bucks!"
> >                                    - (Pope) Rev. Godfather Gillan [edit]

> Kitty, your sig makes you look crazy...
> but you never have any INTENT to offend, so it is o.k.

Oh, GEE, THANKS. "It's okay." I feel so much better now that I've passed
your standards. My sig is 'okay' regardless of WHAT is in it. I INTEND to
offend most religious freaks out there, so does that make it NOT okay now?
Or does it matter who the victim is? And why should that matter? 

It's nice to know there are net.cops out there who can decide what's
'okay' and what's not...just so I know before I go saying anything. Thank
you. 


--

Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian
								Meow!

--> You can fight the Conspiracy of Normalcy and get back your Slack!
--> Send $1 to Church of the SubGenius / PO Box 140306 / Dallas TX 75214
--> Or visit alt.slack or FTP to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty for info

"Why spend $30 or even $40 dollars for a filthy porno movie when you can
jerk off all over the Church of the SubGenius for only $30 bucks!"
                                   - (Pope) Rev. Godfather Gillan [edit]