john@uw-nsr.UUCP (John Sambrook) (01/03/89)
I've redirected followups to news.misc, since this has nothing to do with electronics. In article <13062@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >In part, I felt my technical tips were amusing. But in equal part, I >wasok [sic] offended by your suggestion that you had information which >you were holding back from the Net for the protection of ourselves, >society at large, yourself, or whoever. Restriction of the free flow of >information really sets me off. You were waving a red flag in front of >a bull. I thought posting your 'technical tips' was irresponsible. With people blowing airliners out of the sky your posting wasn't funny at all. Go ask the relatives of the dead passengers to read your article, and see if they think it is 'amusing.' As regards the 'free flow of information,' most people understand the need to use discretion when discussing certain topics. I understand Larry's concern, and appreciate his discretion. It's too bad that this really 'sets you off.' If it is any comfort to you, people that sell pornography are also typically 'set off' by restrictions on the 'free flow of information.' >I didn't reveal stuff I considered really nasty. Like how to modify common >insecticides to increase their potency toward mammilian [sic] species. >Or how to make efficient mechanisms for dispersing a poisonous liquid >into an aerosal [sic]. Your 'really nasty' information has nothing to do with the original subject, so there would be no reason to post it. Of course, with your obvious concern for the 'free flow of information' one is led to believe that you would post it, if only someone would ask. Why do you think about such things anyway? Are you really interested in hurting and/or killing people? What did you do when people starting dropping dead after taking Tylenol? Laugh? Applaud the 'free flow of information?' >In fact, I consider the facts I disclosed to be rather obvious to the >thinking mind. Given your previous postings this reader, at least, is left wondering what experience you might have had with 'thinking minds,' which would qualify you to make such an statement. Obviously, any such experience was second-hand, at best. >Do the readers of this newsgroup prefer self-censorship, external >censorship, or no censorship at all? I suspect the vast majority prefer >no censorship at all. I appreciate thoughtful postings. Your posting was inappropriate. >Am I right or am I wrong? C'mon net.electronics, pass judgement on Larry >Lippman vs. me! Do you want maximum facts, or just the facts you can be >trusted with? Obviously, I think you're wrong. As for passing judgement on you, I think you are probably just immature. Of course, we can not rule out the possibility that you are a psychopath. Perhaps you could have some tests done, and post the results? I'm sure everyone would be interested, and such an act would be consistent with your interests in the 'free flow of information.' -- John Sambrook Internet: john@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu University of Washington RC-05 UUCP: uw-nsr!john Seattle, Washington 98195 Dial: (206) 548-4386