Re: Does John Gilmore...
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
Black Unicorn writes:
Dave Hayes writes:
Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast. Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture? That which is broadcast is certainly speech. Trying to draw some kind of "right to be broadcast" as a result is stupidity or ignorance, or both. Then I suppose you want to control all mailing lists, USENET groups, and web pages. These are broadcasts, and of course they have no rights other than what you seem to want to give them. If I owned it, of course I would control it.
If you really owned it, you would not need to control it.
You are simply exhibiting the symptoms of a spoiled brat because you have been fortunate enough, thus far, to rely on the benevolance of whoever is providing you your newsfeed.
Methinks you know not to whom you are speaking to. Those that know may see just how the seeds of assumptions are sown in this person's mindset.
The fact that control is not exercised, does not mean it doesn't exist. In reality control is exercised in many ways.
The fact that control exists does not mean it is effective, necessary, or appropriate. Unchecked need to control is merely an outward sign of a lack of inner control, which is a disease most control freaks have.
Thus your attempt to demonize me merely exposes your ire for the system as it now exists, your fanciful dreams of how it should be aside.
I am not attempting to demonize you...you do that to yourself well enough. I have no interest in your support or opposition, other than as a tool to show those who can see where certain specific attitudes come from.
This is where you fail, with the basic inability to distinguish ownership of intellectual content and the right to compell its broadcast by whomever might control the medium.
I maintain that it is neither appropriate nor in any sense beneficial to apply this kind of draconian control to internet communication in the general sense.
Learn the difference. Go to law school before you argue free speech concepts in any detail. "Laws" do not cover the net's "multicast" technology. Snort< I suppose you live in the only true anarchy?
Why is it that when less regulation is desirable, the kneejerk response is to declare that desire anarchistic? Human attempts at creating and imposing "law" are arbitrary, inefficient, and subject to change based on the whim of those who claim to own their implementation.
Distinguishing communication types so as to control those who use them is not going to solve your problem. You are much better off, from a practical standpoint, learning to control what you see and hear rather than attempting to control others. I'm not sure what the above babble means.
Hence your attempt to control others.
I'm not sure you are either.
Hence your inability to understand the concept of "honor".
One does not need a school to see this, it sits under one's nose like a milk moustache. This is the uneducated man's excuse.
"Education" has very little to do with knowledge and a lot more to do with external approval, in the sense you appear to be using it. "Indoctrination" and "Conditioning" are the two terms that best fit your apparent notion. We all know how far those have gotten us in the past 2000 years. One can see this "progress" by looking at the net's attempts to control Mr. Grubor... ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be abolished. As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually stung to death by scorpions.
Somebody censored the header in this article, and we put it back. You know, that is the worst kind of censorship, when somebody attempts to avoid the issue. This whole case started with Vulis who is heterosexual vs. John Gilmore who is homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals must not be allowed to have any "control" priveleges on this Internet any more. The question is, does this John Gilmore really take it up the ass? Whether or not he is a FAGGOT is a very relevant issue here, and it must not be overlooked. On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:27:53 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore...
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
Black Unicorn writes:
Dave Hayes writes:
Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast. Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture? That which is broadcast is certainly speech. Trying to draw some kind of "right to be broadcast" as a result is stupidity or ignorance, or both. Then I suppose you want to control all mailing lists, USENET groups, and web pages. These are broadcasts, and of course they have no rights other than what you seem to want to give them. If I owned it, of course I would control it.
If you really owned it, you would not need to control it.
You are simply exhibiting the symptoms of a spoiled brat because you have been fortunate enough, thus far, to rely on the benevolance of whoever is providing you your newsfeed.
Methinks you know not to whom you are speaking to. Those that know may see just how the seeds of assumptions are sown in this person's mindset.
The fact that control is not exercised, does not mean it doesn't exist. In reality control is exercised in many ways.
The fact that control exists does not mean it is effective, necessary, or appropriate. Unchecked need to control is merely an outward sign of a lack of inner control, which is a disease most control freaks have.
Thus your attempt to demonize me merely exposes your ire for the system as it now exists, your fanciful dreams of how it should be aside.
I am not attempting to demonize you...you do that to yourself well enough. I have no interest in your support or opposition, other than as a tool to show those who can see where certain specific attitudes come from.
This is where you fail, with the basic inability to distinguish ownership of intellectual content and the right to compell its broadcast by whomever might control the medium.
I maintain that it is neither appropriate nor in any sense beneficial to apply this kind of draconian control to internet communication in the general sense.
Learn the difference. Go to law school before you argue free speech concepts in any detail. "Laws" do not cover the net's "multicast" technology. Snort< I suppose you live in the only true anarchy?
Why is it that when less regulation is desirable, the kneejerk response is to declare that desire anarchistic?
Human attempts at creating and imposing "law" are arbitrary, inefficient, and subject to change based on the whim of those who claim to own their implementation.
Distinguishing communication types so as to control those who use them is not going to solve your problem. You are much better off, from a practical standpoint, learning to control what you see and hear rather than attempting to control others. I'm not sure what the above babble means.
Hence your attempt to control others.
I'm not sure you are either.
Hence your inability to understand the concept of "honor".
One does not need a school to see this, it sits under one's nose like a milk moustache. This is the uneducated man's excuse.
"Education" has very little to do with knowledge and a lot more to do with external approval, in the sense you appear to be using it. "Indoctrination" and "Conditioning" are the two terms that best fit your apparent notion.
We all know how far those have gotten us in the past 2000 years. One can see this "progress" by looking at the net's attempts to control Mr. Grubor...
Anyone exercising any attempts at "control" are giving justified reason for their immediate elimination.
------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be abolished.
As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually stung to death by scorpions.
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote:
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:09:17 -0500 (EST) From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org> To: aga <aga@dhp.com> Cc: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>, cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore ?
Grubby! Back under your rock!
FUCK YOU COCKSUCKER -- as long as you keep writing to be, I will continue to rip a new asshole in the Faggot John Gilmore who promotes PUNKs like you. A 'punk' is a faggot pussy who is really NOT a man!
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
Somebody censored the header in this article, and we put it back. You know, that is the worst kind of censorship, when somebody attempts to avoid the issue.
The faggot Gilmore does take it up the ass and also eat assholes, so he should be added to the net.scum list at once. -a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, The following is truly noise. Please ignore it and forgive me for playing with the animals. They are just so much fun when they begin to froth at the mouth. In some ways it's like picking at a scab to see what's underneath. Grubby, How do you like my NEW Subject line? Now don't change it, because that would be "the worst kind of censorship." ;-) So why the big hard-on against John? Did he turn down your advances because he's straight? Latents who are in denial like you are so pathetically impotent. By the way, I guess you've wimped out on your "threat" not to respond to posts CCed to the Cypherpunks list. (Feel free not to respond to this post. That'll teach me.) I noted your kickboxing "challenge" in another post. Obviously, you crave physical contact with other men, but cannot admit it to yourself, so you seek it through "combat." Wouldn't Greco-Roman wrestling be more your style? Why you've even got a Greek in your group who would probably love it. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
participants (4)
-
aga -
Dave Hayes -
Rabid Wombat -
Sandy Sandfort