Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:16:00 -0800 From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
Jim Choate wrote:
'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any particular view on them.
And Germany was Hitler and the Nazi Party's own country.
And your point is? Are you equating a specific individual or organization with Hitler or the National Socialist?
Do you really want Clinton and GingWretch having a say in how we run our
No, and I have a vote to express that sentiment with and a 'press' (ssz.com) by which I may express my views irrelevant of how that vote may resolve itself. If the people in those counties want to give away their freedom that is their business (and right), not mine, yours, or this countries unless there is evidence they are trying to take their views and impose them here. Do you have said evidence? In reference to Hitler, had he stayed in his own country WWII and the ensuing half century of conflict would most likely not have occured. I say, let them filter themselves into economic collapse, intellectual nihilism, and political suicide. Suicide, assissted or otherwise, is a right any and all individuals have whether acting as individuals or as groups. Remember Masada! Never forget, a tree can exist without a forest but a forest can not exist without trees. It is a one way street however much some people may want to convince us otherwise.
It may be 'their' country ('their' being the government), but it is 'their' world ('their' being the people).
A goverment is people. This reminds me of the argument of the sanctity of law that so many people have. It is only ink on paper that people agree to go along with until they get their fill. Consider, history is full of examples of this process and with California and Massachusettes move on legalizing medical marijuana we may be seeing the first move of a return to states being much more adament on what they can and can't do (per the 9th and 10th).
There was a reason that the Western powers didn't return East Germans who broke the laws of their country by climbing over the wall and running for freedom. Making information available does not 'force' a view on anyone.
If those people agree to support a system that limits or controls what information they get to see that is their choice. It didn't work in Russia and it won't work in Singapore or China any better. If the US were to continue to press forward on oppressive legislation and the people don't do anything actively to fight it the same thing will happen here, economic collapse which forces a political collapse. However, we won't get there because the more the government employees and officials 'crack down' the more resistance they will get. You can fool most of the people some of the time, some of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. The key to democratic success is not compromise but rather the unwillingness to compromise.
Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share data in a easily digestible format.
No. The internet was conceived so that the DOD could monitor the communications of physicists and researchers who thought it was awfully nice of the government to provide this wonderful method of sharing data and information.
The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. The original goal of the Internet was to allow computers to be connected in a nuclear conflict and the period afterward when communications would be most critical. How people may have bastardized it since then does not change the original reasons (unless you accept revisionist history as a valid endeavour, I don't). One of the biggest problems this country has right now is the inability of people like yourself to differentiate the difference between the ideals of the country and the people who impliment it. The problem is not the government or the ideals it was founded on but rather the way we impliment it. Our government is people, who put their pants on the same way you or I do (assuming you wear pants that is). They are not inherently some mineon of Hell, they are people who in general either don't give a damn and it's just a job or else they really believe what they are doing. Our government is NOT some ideal or non-real entity, despite how many citizens may rail about it in that manner. It just don't make it so. Accept and deal with your schizophrenic tendencies and help solve this national problem we face. Let's try to solve it now so that our grandchildren won't have to fight this fight again. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage@ssz.com
Jim Choate wrote:
Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to stop it. And Germany was Hitler and the Nazi Party's own country. And your point is? Are you equating a specific individual or organization with Hitler or the National Socialist?
Sorry, I forgot that people who work well with numbers often aren't as good at working with concepts. I'll write slowly. I'm equating 'any' country where individuals take and keep power over it's citizen by illicit and/or dehumanizing means with Nazism and Fascism.
If the people in those counties want to give away their freedom that is their business (and right), not mine, yours, or this countries unless there is evidence they are trying to take their views and impose them here.
Right. And if someone 'chooses' to give their money to a thief with a gun, then it is not the business of other people, or the police. I would hate to interfere with someones 'right' to get robbed, raped, or murdered.
In reference to Hitler, had he stayed in his own country WWII and the ensuing half century of conflict would most likely not have occured.
But according to your viewpoint, countries he had not invaded had no right to 'help' those he conquered. Perhaps Hitler was merely the Dr. Vulis of isolationism. The isolationists' claims that the affairs of other countries were not our affairs changed rather rapidly when it became apparent that they had better either get their heads out of their butts, or learn to speak German.
I say, let them filter themselves into economic collapse, intellectual nihilism, and political suicide. Suicide, assissted or otherwise, is a right any and all individuals have whether acting as individuals or as groups.
It seems that several million Jews got 'filtered' into 'nihilism' during the Second World War while the isolationists were busy not interfering with the rights of individuals in other nations to commit 'suicide' at the hands of the Nazis.
Never forget, a tree can exist without a forest but a forest can not exist without trees. It is a one way street however much some people may want to convince us otherwise.
Never forget. A forest can apparently exist without Jewish trees.
If those people agree to support a system that limits or controls what information they get to see that is their choice. It didn't work in Russia and it won't work in Singapore or China any better.
There are a lot of people lying in graves around the world who might suggest that perhaps they didn't support the system that limited, controlled, and murdered them. They might also argue that it 'did' work in many countries, for many years.
No. The internet was conceived so that the DOD could monitor the communications of physicists and researchers who thought it was awfully nice of the government to provide this wonderful method of sharing data and information.
The original goal of the Internet was to allow computers to be connected in a nuclear conflict and the period afterward when communications would be most critical.
I believe you mean the 'stated' original goal of the InterNet. (Similar to the 'stated' goal of crypto regulations.) A series of manuscripts entitled "The True Story of the InterNet" expose the shadowy faces behind the facade of the InterNet, and the plans, during its very inception, for it to become part of the underlying fabric of everyday life, internationally. They were almost considered to be sci-fiction at the time they were written, because the InterNet, at the time was just a smallish, specialized, technical entity at the time. The claims they made for the InterNet being foreordained to become almost exactly what it is now becoming were written off as ludicrous.
One of the biggest problems this country has right now is the inability of people like yourself to differentiate the difference between the ideals of the country and the people who impliment it.
You seem to have very strong feelings about people who think differently from yourself being a 'big problem'.
The problem is not the government or the ideals it was founded on but rather the way we impliment it.
The battle cry of every apologist for every corrupt or jackboot regime that has ever existed on earth. Why do I never hear this view from anyone who is being censored, persecuted, or who can hear the jackboots thumping against their own door or their neighbor's door? It always seems to come from someone who is getting their piece of the pie and is worried that it might end.
Our government is people, who put their pants on the same way you or I do (assuming you wear pants that is). They are not inherently some mineon of Hell, they are people who in general either don't give a damn and it's just a job or else they really believe what they are doing.
You might try reading something other than 'Life' magazines from the 1950's if you want to get a little better picture of how our government really operates.
Accept and deal with your schizophrenic tendencies and help solve this national problem we face. Let's try to solve it now so that our grandchildren won't have to fight this fight again.
I'm already working toward solving the problems that I see, in other countries as well as this one. The people behind the Iron Curtain have never seemed to have any problem with me risking my life and liberty making prohibited information available to them. "I can hear the rumbling of the trucks as they come up the street, and soon I will be hearing the thumping of the jackboots storming up the staircase, as I have heard them so many times before. But I suspect that, this time, the sound will be different, that it will have an ethereal quality about it, one which conveys greater personal meaning than it did when I heard it on previous occasions. "This time, they are coming for me." "My only hope, is that I can find the strength of character somewhere inside myself to ask the question which lies at the heart of why there is a 'they' to come for me at all...why, in the end, it has finally come to this for me, as for countless others. "The question is, in retrospect, as simple and basic as it is essential for any who still espouse the concepts of freedom and liberty to ask themselves upon finding themselves marveling at the outrageousness being perpetrated upon their neighbors by 'them'...by 'others'...by 'Friends of the Destroyer.' "The question is...'Why didn't "I" do something?'" A quote from the personal diary of Vice-Admiral B. D'Shauneaux, from the Prologue to Part II of 'The True Story of the InterNet' Toto
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
Toto