mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/03/85)
>> > How about a ban because it is both disgusting and illegal? It would have >> > to be made illegal on the grounds that it is disgusting. (ray) >> >> This is Ray on pornography. His brilliance is still astounding to me. >> I mean, you read this, and the words "why is the fact that you find something >> disgusting a reason to ban it?" are on the tip of the tongue from the capital >> "H" straight through to the question mark! THIS is what brilliant satire is >> all about. (richie) >> -- > > By the way, for those of you who are not aware of the censorship that Richie > performs on other's postings for the purposes of substantiating his otherwise > weak arguments, the above posting of mine dealt entirely on CHILD porn, not > porn in general as Richie would have us believe. First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about, it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it). If what you are trying to tell us is that you are not consistent, I suggest that you keep your mouth shut until you have some firm idea of what the hell you're talking about (by the way, just in case you don't know, this isn't censorship either. Perhaps you should look up the word "censorship" in a good dictionary before going on.) Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "I know what you are. Nut. Screwball. Flake. Lunatic. Fruitcake. Bats in the attic. Psycho. All your dogs aren't barking." "Are too! Are too! Woof! Woof!"
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/07/85)
> > First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of > context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about, > it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was > assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it). > If what you are trying to tell us is that you are not consistent, I suggest > that you keep your mouth shut until you have some firm idea of what the hell > you're talking about (by the way, just in case you don't know, this isn't > censorship either. Perhaps you should look up the word "censorship" in a > good dictionary before going on.) > > Scott McEwan > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan > > "I know what you are. Nut. Screwball. Flake. Lunatic. Fruitcake. > Bats in the attic. Psycho. All your dogs aren't barking." > > "Are too! Are too! Woof! Woof!" Ok, so Richie both quotes out of context and uses censorship, so what. In either case it is a distortion of some one elses postings. Oh and by the way, I have kept my mouth shut, you see, I have this keyboard and I type on it and the little letters go over the wires and into the net. Scottie, I think your warp drive is busted and your working entirely on impulse power, better get that fixed or you'll never get anywhere. ray Here's a few: You're stairs don't go all the way to your attic, or how about 'the lights are on but no one's home' and finally 'you're porch light is a little dim'. bye bye
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/07/85)
> First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of > context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about, > it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was > assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it). > If what you are trying to tell us is that you are not consistent, I suggest > that you keep your mouth shut until you have some firm idea of what the hell > you're talking about (by the way, just in case you don't know, this isn't > censorship either. Perhaps you should look up the word "censorship" in a > good dictionary before going on.) > > Scott McEwan > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan > > "I know what you are. Nut. Screwball. Flake. Lunatic. Fruitcake. > Bats in the attic. Psycho. All your dogs aren't barking." Oh come *on*, now. Is this kid stuff really necessary? Isn't the signal to noise ratio poor enough without this? -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/10/85)
>> >> First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of >> context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about, >> it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was >> assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it). >> > > Ok, so Richie both quotes out of context and uses censorship, so what. > In either case it is a distortion of some one elses postings. Ray, please reread my posting. Then read it again. Continue until you understand what is being said. I'll give you a hint - you're interpretation is exactly 180 degrees off. God, I'm starting to miss Ken Arndt. At least HE could READ. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Given a choice, most people would rather not be attacked by horrid undersea slime creatures." "NO!" "Truth hurts."
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/10/85)
>> First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of >> context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about, >> it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was >> assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it). >> If what you are trying to tell us is that you are not consistent, I suggest >> that you keep your mouth shut until you have some firm idea of what the hell >> you're talking about (by the way, just in case you don't know, this isn't >> censorship either. Perhaps you should look up the word "censorship" in a >> good dictionary before going on.) > > Oh come *on*, now. Is this kid stuff really necessary? Isn't the > signal to noise ratio poor enough without this? I don't understand - what are you objecting to? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Given a choice, most people would rather not be attacked by horrid undersea slime creatures." "NO!" "Truth hurts."
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/15/85)
> >>> First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of >>> context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about, >>> it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was >>> assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it). >>> If what you are trying to tell us is that you are not consistent, I suggest >>> that you keep your mouth shut until you have some firm idea of what the hell ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ >>> you're talking about (by the way, just in case you don't know, this isn't ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ >>> censorship either. Perhaps you should look up the word "censorship" in a >>> good dictionary before going on.) >> >> Oh come *on*, now. Is this kid stuff really necessary? Isn't the >> signal to noise ratio poor enough without this? > > I don't understand - what are you objecting to? > > > Scott McEwan > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan Do you *really* think this kind of stuff is appropriate to a public forum? That it is appropriate to private correspondence is arguable. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/17/85)
>>> First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of >>> context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about, >>> it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was >>> assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it). >>> >> >> Ok, so Richie both quotes out of context and uses censorship, so what. >> In either case it is a distortion of some one elses postings. > >Ray, please reread my posting. Then read it again. Continue until you >understand what is being said. I'll give you a hint - you're interpretation >is exactly 180 degrees off. > >God, I'm starting to miss Ken Arndt. At least HE could READ. > Scott McEwan Ray Frank is a part of the same DEC cloning project run amuck that gave us Don Black. Of course, Ken served as the master "mold" from which the other images were cast. (Mold, what an appropriate word for Ken. When did you find evidence that Ken could read?) -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr