anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) (12/14/86)
In article <21062@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > I'd appreciate it if Mr. Mozes, Mr. G. W. Smith, Mr. Harnad, and Mr. > Ellis could conduct their pissing match by private correspondence > or even in talk.philosophy.misc rather than this newsgroup. > Michael C. Berch > News/mail administrator, styx Mr. Berch is entitled to his own opinion, but since his signature tells us he is a news/mail administrator, maybe his vote counts for more than one. It could also be that my vote counts for less than one. Be that as it may, it has not seemed to me that the persons referred to were carrying on a "pissing match" at all. Still less does it seem to me appropriate to move the discussion they and others have been having to another group. Indeed what I find least comprehensible in Berch's request is its timing; it's been very quiet on this topic for some time now. I was despairing of ever hearing another word about it. Notice that I have placed quote marks around "abuses" in the subject header. The issue, to a far greater degree than people yet recognize, I think, is central to the free exchange of ideas in a society of unlike-minded people. It is not a talk.* topic for that reason. It is about usenet itself, and therefore belongs here and not elsewhere. The net that has room for 18,000 jokes surely has room for 115 posts or even 1500 posts to this group. How could anyone disagree that every single one of the posts characterized above as a pissing match (presumably therefore of no interest except to urophiles) was inherently more valuable to the purposes of usenet (in all its splendid diversity) than even the funniest of the jokes. The issue is censorship, the shutting off of available means of communication because particular persons or groups using it do not meet an arbitrary test of respectability (as though *that* were an intellectually valid category!). It is surprising -- I'll go further, it is shocking, and to me disgustingly so -- that this question is not *flooding* this newsgroup with concern for the issue at hand. It is my thesis here that one of the major goals of a significant fraction of our society -- a fraction much in evidence in this discussion heretofore -- is the intentional reduction of options for the exchange of ideas, simply because one set of options does not accord well enough with the preconceived values (in my view, entirely frivolous and neurotic ones too) of holders of another set of options. This is, therefore, another instance of the triumph of darkness over light, reduction over synthesis, and the sort of orthodoxy that imposes its will on others without regard for anything other than its own continuance. It is anti-science. It is anti-human. It is not acceptable. -- ==ARPA:==============anderson@unix.macc.wisc.edu===Jess Anderson====== | UUCP: {harvard,seismo,topaz, (avoid ihnp4!) 1210 W. Dayton | | akgua,allegra,usbvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!anderson Madison, WI 53706 | ==BITNET:======================anderson@wiscmacc===608/263-6988=======
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (12/15/86)
In article <678@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: > In article <21062@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > > > I'd appreciate it if Mr. Mozes, Mr. G. W. Smith, Mr. Harnad, and Mr. > > Ellis could conduct their pissing match by private correspondence > > or even in talk.philosophy.misc rather than this newsgroup. > > > Michael C. Berch > > News/mail administrator, styx > > Mr. Berch is entitled to his own opinion, but since his signature tells > us he is a news/mail administrator, maybe his vote counts for more than > one. It could also be that my vote counts for less than one. > Be that as it may, it has not seemed to me that the persons referred > to were carrying on a "pissing match" at all. Still less does it seem > to me appropriate to move the discussion they and others have been > having to another group. Indeed what I find least comprehensible in > Berch's request is its timing; it's been very quiet on this topic for > some time now. I was despairing of ever hearing another word about it. I am mystified by this. I posted my article after wading through eight or ten articles of the type I referred to. Today there were four more, sandwiched around Mr. Anderson's article. Perhaps uwmacc is simply not receiving these articles, in which case Mr. Anderson's remarks might make sense. His lengthy diatribe notwithstanding, the issue is not censorship nor freedom of expression. The articles to which I referred, and which are still in full flower, are puerile exchanges of the form "X hates Objectivists. No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't. Well, Y is a Randroid then. No he isn't. Yes he is. Does this belong in talk.philosophy.misc? No it doesn't. Yes it does. No it doesn't. But Z thinks that Objectivists should be banned from the net. No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't. But Y is an Objectivist, so when he says 'abc', he really means 'def.' No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't." If Mr. Anderson (or any of the rest of you) can find anything of meaning in these articles, please clue me in. Perhaps I'm missing something of lasting importance. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb
rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (12/17/86)
Keywords:No he doesn't, yes he does, do we care? I agree, this back and forth name calling was fun to begin but has long since run out of steam. As opposed to hot air, of which there seems still to be an ample supply. I for one am very grateful to be able to learn and share via this medium. A minimum measure of courtesy therefor seems an appropriate tone to maintain while using the net, but I realize that not everyone shares that view. More important, net users are free to decide for themselves what type of language they want to use. Let's move on to more rewarding topics, keeping in mind that this is a very wide open medium which affords us a wonderful opportunity to share and learn, or, if we choose, to make complete fools of ourselves on a world-wide basis.
hrh@well.UUCP (Harry Henderson) (12/18/86)
The subject of "news.misc" as I understand it is "issues concerning the use of news that don't fit into a more specific context (such as software bugs, etc.). I could see someone quoting flames from talk.philosphy etc. as part of a discussion of what kind of writing is appropriate, although I'm sure you've noticed that flaming is contagious (flammable) such that discussions about flaming have a distressing habit of bursting into flames themselves. But why do the "philosophers" have to carry on their arguments here? Yes, they have the "freedom" to do so, but misusing a newsgroup simply makes life harder for everyone else who has to wade through inappropriate messages, not to mention pay for them. The result is counterproductive in that it's hard to give a fair hearing to the philosophical views of people who insist on scrawling them over every billboard in town.
jc@piaget.UUCP (John Cornelius) (12/18/86)
In article <678@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: >In article <21062@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >> I'd appreciate it if Mr. Mozes, Mr. G. W. Smith, Mr. Harnad, and Mr. >> Ellis could conduct their pissing match by private correspondence >> or even in talk.philosophy.misc rather than this newsgroup. > >Mr. Berch is entitled to his own opinion, but ........... [Much, much more] Very well, where do you propose that responsible persons go to carry on courteous, responsible, and hopefully productive discussions? -- John Cornelius (...!sdcsvax!piaget!jc)