gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (12/17/86)
A number of people have been making the point that the name-calling here is getting a little stale. Since I am on the receiving end of some of this pro-censorship stuff, I didn't want to quit before having squacked my squack. This I have done, and if people will just cease and desist flaming me with utterly stupid flames in public, maybe it will all go away. People who can take a hint when offered might look at the "keyword" up there. In particular, In article <6475@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >In article <555@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.UUCP writes: >> This is a good example of why enforcing a politeness standard is >> an idea whose time should never come. People's ideas about it are just >> too different. I think Steven Harnad was very impolite indeed; Steven >> presumably thinks that he was merely serving as the Voice of Reason. >This is a remarkably ridiculous statement! Saying that Harnad was impolite, >BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH YOU, is only self serving. I guess that in your >polite world, everyone would agree with you? This is a remarkably ridiculous statement! Just where did I give the impression that I thought Harnad was impolite BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH ME? WHERE? Your saying that my saying that Harnad was impolite because he disagreed with me when I gave no reason and in fact, as you could have gleaned from previous postings of mine, was asserting that he was impolite because he called someone else "obviously disturbed" and a "borderline personality" and actively campaigned to have him heaved off the net is pretty silly, don't you think? (Please take your time parsing that last sentence. I do not want to repeat myself on this topic, if you don't mind.) Or do you even know what all this is about? I guess in your polite little world, people don't try to censor you, eh? >On the other hand, I think that a politeness standard (enforced by >protest, shunning, and voiciferous mail complaints) is essential to the >fabric of society. Since society exists only because of the >cooperation of the people, at least in small things like >civil behavior, perhaps what's being said here is that gsmith really >wants to destroy society. Wonder what he'd like to replace it with? >(Wonder if he even thought about it?) If you don't take the point of my sarcasm, let me make it clearer: if you believe civility and politeness to be so important, why not practice what you preach? You hypocrisy is showing, I fear. Moreover, if you believe that intelligent rules intelligently followed are important to the fabric of a society, and this electronic one in particular, then why did you do such a fundamentally stupid and anarchistic thing as cross-posting to talk.politics.misc? Since you believe that writing nasty letters to remove nasty people from the net is such a good idea, would you object if everyone who dislikes your position were to write to your boss suggesting that you be sternly admonished? Why or why not? Strangely enough, the question of what I would wish to replace society with is one that had not occurred to me. Maybe you should have cross-posted this to talk.politics.theory instead of just talk.politics.misc? As for the politeness standard, I might want to replace it with an intelligence standard. Very stupid people would not be allowed to post. That would leave maybe 50 of us on the whole net. You would not be included, judging solely on your last posting. But I will be magnanimous, OK? >GET THIS OUT OF NEWS.MISC, I DON'T THINK NEWS ADMINISTRATORS CARE, EXCEPT >ABOUT THE THEIR TIME THAT YOU'RE WASTING! GET THIS OUT OF TALK.POLITICS.MISC! IT BELONGS IN NEWS.MISC! And if news administrators don't care about censorship, or support it, then THEY are precisely the ones who need to hear it. Fortunately, many of them DO oppose you pro-censorship types. Unfortunately, many of them are now tired of hearing about it. You may, if you wish, bring up a separate discussion in talk.politics.theory concerning society, civility and cen- sorship in general. (Notice I said t.p.theory.) By starting afresh, you and others won't goad me to respond to your incorrect finger-pointing, allowing ME to freely ignore this news.misc discussion. Talk.politics.misc does not need this "abuse of the net" discussion in the least. Some groups have standards. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Logicians are apt to call this an *argumentum ad hominem*. Quite so: .. I am addressing *humans*. I am addressing neither dogs nor logicians.
jj@alice.UUCP (12/17/86)
Mr. Smith, in an ad-hominem reply to my comments on his regarding Harnad, states quite clearly that I believe in censorship. He also quotes my words, which advocate complaining to the source you don't like, rather than to their boss, or what have you. This, regardless of what Mr. Smith says, is not censorship, it is simply expecting the writer to take responsiblity for that which is written. I do not, and let me state this clearly, advocate censorship, in any form, for any actions that are legal and maintain at least a pretense of civility. I believe that breaches of civility are entirely permissible in places where they are expected, and should be treated with (private) scorn where they are NOT expected. The statement that I advocate censorship is a straw-man argument, clear as simple, and is an utter mistatement. It appears that such mistatement is part and parcel of this entire and * deliberately fabricated * discussion of censorship. Furthermore, Mr. Smith states again, and again incorrectly, that discussion of this fabricated crises should happen in news.misc. Given the nature of this discussion, its obvious overtones of political and personal philosophy, and such, it is clear that it does NOT belong in any news.* group, but that it rather belongs in talk.flame (if such exists), talk.politics.<something> or perhaps some other group of which I am blissfully unaware in which individuals demonstrate their pre-primate ancestry. -- TEDDYBEARS ARE FOR ALL YEAR. "Kiss me, Kate, and cursed' be he who first cries 'Enough!' " (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (12/18/86)
In article <6484@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >Mr. Smith, in an ad-hominem reply to my comments on his regarding >Harnad, states quite clearly that I believe in censorship. He also >quotes my words, which advocate complaining to the source >you don't like, rather than to their boss, or what >have you. As I pointed out to "jj" when s/he e-mailed me a reply (see that up there? E-mail?) I assumed that s/he was talking about mailing to "the boss, or what have you" because (key point coming up!) that is what this whole discussion has been about. If anyone wants to abuse me in e-mail, fire away. But don't write to my system manager with complaints! > This, regardless of what Mr. Smith says, is >not censorship, it is simply expecting the writer to take >responsiblity for that which is written. I DIDN'T say that. Gosh-this-is-stupid. >The statement that I advocate censorship is a straw-man argument, >clear as simple, and is an utter mistatement. The mistatement is the one you made, which I interpreted in the obvious way given the context. So what are YOU so sore about?? >It appears that such mistatement is part and parcel of this entire >and * deliberately fabricated * discussion of censorship. "Deliberately fabricated?" Did I fabricate the fact that people have written to my sysadmin? Did I fabricate the fact that as I result I have been accused of things I didn't do? Did I fabricate the fact that as a result certain persons have been (temporarily, I think) muzzled? If you don't know what the facts are, then shut up. The censorship is real, and your calling me a liar is not especially helpful. >Furthermore, Mr. Smith states again, and again incorrectly, >that discussion of this fabricated crises should happen in >news.misc. It is about the net. What IS your problem? If you ever get censored, I don't want to hear about it. That's fair, right? > Given the nature of this discussion, its obvious >overtones of political and personal philosophy, and such, it is >clear that it does NOT belong in any news.* group, but that it >rather belongs in talk.flame (if such exists), talk.politics.<something> >or perhaps some other group of which I am blissfully unaware in which >individuals demonstrate their pre-primate ancestry. Talk.origins, I suppose? By the way, you are maintaining a remarkably high level of inconsistency by both calling me an ape an a liar AND insisting on a high standard of net civility. I'm not sure you even know what you think or what you want. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Logicians are apt to call this an *argumentum ad hominem*. Quite so: .. I am addressing *humans*. I am addressing neither dogs nor logicians.