[[Reply-To: john.nieder@tigerteam.org]] -=> Quoting Dputzolu@cs.uiuc.edu to John Nieder <=- Dp> | I mean, think about it: Would you be polite to Charles Schumer? Dp> I understand completely, and was frustrated about the lack of Dp> thoughtful response. However, by posting in a flame tone you did give Dp> the moderator an excuse to (assuming he was) censor your post. Well, look at it this way. After having several buttheads stamp on your big toe, you're throbbing sore and about ready to kill the next guy who does it. Anti-gun net administrators on another network used obscure and broadly-ignored rules, particularly a dusty "real names only" policy to kill off the best gun forum I've ever seen. Jeff Chan then listened to a couple of really messed up anti-anon people and unilaterally banned remailed posts on ca-firearms@shell.portal.com without valid reasons or discussion (note from my previous cross-posts that he STILL won't discuss it to this day). Now this "Magnum" person, for completely illogical and uninformed reasons is doing the same goddam thing on rec.guns, in spite of the fact that I have pointed out the specific fallacies in the anti-anon argument. This is like talking to Sarah Brady about bogus HCI anti-gun claims. I mean, _deja vu_! | Dp> However, you have made quite an accusation. I did see at least | Dp> a few posts arguing the pro-anon side (including mine). Dp> | Obviously, he excluded _mine_, and admitted it. Dp> Right, but he has reasonable reasons for this. If he doesn't for Dp> the other ones, then... There's _always_ a good reason to exclude something you don't want anyone to hear. You show that the Greifer post eventually appeared, but did it do so AFTER the "Closure on [ANON]" post? If so, it was likely retrieved and stuck in AFTER I started raising hell about it. I got that post some time ago. I didn't see the Vetleson post in any case, and certainly none of the short, supporting pro-anon messages that I got that were Cc:ed to the group. If "Magnum" says that his anti-anon position was overwhelmingly supported (despite the fact it was based on erroneous propositions) we only have his word for it, as he filters all messages to the group before we see them. In the first couple of days after my post, I received twelve netmail posts (most, perhaps all, showing headers indicating they were also posted to the group), eight of which supported my pro-anon post, two of which were illiterate anti-anon blasts of one or two lines, and the remaining one was upset at the angry tone of the post. The later mail was about in the same proportion. Only _one_ anti-anon post questioned a single of my assertions, and that was on a technical point about which the respondent was in error (I will post my response to him after I'm done with this message). Is this "overwhelming" anti-anon support? I think not. A very heavy majority who wrote to me supported remailer use, and we are told that people are more likely to write to bitch than to agree on any given issue. Maybe the posts to "Magnum," whoever he is, were completely anti-anon, but it just doesn't seem plausible to me. I'm sure at this point it's too late to know, but it's established that he didn't show us _every_ message that came in, but merely an edited "digest." If he's the moderator, he can obviously do whatever he pleases, no matter if it's the usual capricious and petty nonsense we've all come to expect from the sort of people who tend to become moderators. What bugs me is this charade of consensus...which even if it did exist would be in favor of a demonstrably flawed policy that should be rejected on the basis of objective criteria anyway. Dp> You'll notice that all anti-anon responses were Dp> either butt-kissing | "me-too" posts of moderator adulation, or else Dp> completely ignored the | arguments in my post. Dp> I know, I know. I hoped rec.guns would have a few more free-thinkers, Dp> but it seems most don't see past the end of their muzzle. [Sigh!] This is another subject, but one that ought to be addressed at some point in an appropriate venue. I am _really_ distressed at the intellectual insularity of the RTKBA crowd who are, as a group, probably the squarest bunch of anal-retentive old ladies I've ever had the misfortune to be allied with. Their political unsophistication, narrowness and conceptual introversion drives me nuts. They also have this infuriating timidity about yelling when stepped on. Note the collective reaction (and yours) when I did. Dp> This may be true, but rec.guns has its own rules. Just because someone Dp> makes the superior arguments doesn't mean they win the debate. That's Dp> life. No kidding. Dp> On the other hand, IF consent was engineered, that isn't fair Dp> play, and can and should be acted on. "Fair play" is nothing but a quaint irrelevancy in 1994. Anyone in serious RTKBA lobbying discovers that in a BIG hurry. If fair play mattered, none of these anti-gun bills would have got past committee. Anyway, there's no way that we can "prove" what the input was at this late date. All this mail is ephemeral and gone by now, I'm sure. If "Magnum" fiddled the outcome, as I suspect he did to one degree or another, I don't even really care any more. The wrongheaded policy is passed, just like the recent wrongheaded gun laws, and that's _that_. I see that the moderator (whose comments indicate he _still_ doesn't understand the mechanics of remailers or the point of their use) has essentially told Greifer in this belated entry, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts." The abusive and plainly stupid no-anon policy has made rec.guns lots of new enemies and accomplished nothing else of substance. I've dropped rec.guns as a waste of my time and an insult to common sense. If anything useful at all has come out of this, it's that more and more people are getting fed up with the insularity, intellectual dishonesty and hidebound mindset prevailing in these traditional gun forums. Alternative venues are sorely needed. I think we're going to see them established soon. Stay tuned. |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%| | <john.nieder@tigerteam.org> * CP2A * PGP Key # E27937 on all servers | |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| |"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude | | better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in | | peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the | | hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may | |posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, 1776| |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| |BOYCOTT: Pepsico <KFC - Taco Bell - Frito-Lay - Pepsi-Cola> & Gillette| |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|