Filter to exclude Detweiler?
I've personally come to the conclusion that it's no longer useful to (a) attempt to communicate with Detweiler, or (b) pay attention to what he writes. I am, however, opposed to source-filtering him at philosophical and practical levels. I think his bad craziness is evident enough from his postings that anyone paying much attention will conclude he's disconnected from external reality; it shouldn't take more than a few messages for folks to reach this conclusion. (I admit with some chagrin that it took more than a few for me to do that.) I think that source filtering is at least a close kin to censorship, and I'd vote to steer clear of it. I also think that attempting to source-filter him may lead to some sort of "identity arms race", via remailers, anon-servers, and the like. Such an arms race would be distracting, annoying, and lead to further wasted time, effort, and energy on the part of people who ought to have better things to do. :) I encourage folks to look into improving technology which would allow for destination-filtering, e.g., kill-files and their ilk. (Next-generation killfiles - ones which attempt some sort of textual interpretation/classification beyond headers - implemented at the destination point have the added benefit that the filter target can't easily deduce from the list traffic what algorithm/pattern is being used, and thereby avoid it.) For what it's worth, I write the above in spite of the fact that I don't have a kill-file in the reader-agent that I read C-punks with, and I pay for every minute of transmission time used to receive C-punks, including Detweiler's lengthy messages. -- Greg Broiles greg@goldenbear.com Baked, not fried.
participants (1)
-
gregļ¼ ideath.goldenbear.com