XPost: alt.sex.stories.d, alt.fan.prettyboy, alt.oyp.sworp   
   XPost: alt.hackers.malicious, alt.troll   
   From: fkhall@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:03:41 -0600, Frank McCoy    
   wrote:   
      
   >In alt.sex.stories.d Tim Merrigan  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:25:46 -0700, A Strange Geek   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Frank McCoy wrote:   
   >>>> In alt.callahans Denny Wheeler    
   wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>It ain't censorship, Frank.  There's a set of guidelines, and we   
   >>>>>adhere to them.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As I pointed out to somebody who emailed me, guidelines or not, the whole   
   >>>> *point* of having a moderated sex-stories newsgroup is to censor out   
   unwanted   
   >>>> material ... like spam, trolls, off-topic material, advertisements, binary   
   >>>> stuff, and just plain garbage.  If you *remove* posts for *any* reason,   
   based on   
   >>>> "guidelines"; no matter *what* the guidelines are, it's *still*   
   censorship,   
   >>>> because your readers don't see everything posted to the group!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you don't believe me, look up the *definition* of censorship.   
   >>>> You'll find it very closely resembles the definition of moderating.   
   >>>> Somebody decides what IS and what IS NOT appropriate for other people to   
   see.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That the censorship is *wanted* and *desired* and *appropriate* for the   
   group   
   >>>> and matching the set of guidelines as to what to censor and what not-to,   
   doesn't   
   >>>> make it any LESS censorship!  Nor does the fact that only whole articles   
   are   
   >>>> removed; not parts of stories.   
   >>>   
   >>>No, I don't agree that the literal definition applies. I think we're   
   >>>talking about shades of meaning and intent. The words "censorship" and   
   >>>"moderation" have very different connotations. "censorship" always   
   >>>carries a bad connotation with it, and generally is used to refer to the   
   >>>act of removing "objectionable" material according to a set of moral   
   >>>standards.   
   >>>   
   >>>"Moderation" has a different connotation. It is not based on someone's   
   >>>morality. The decision to reject spams, ads, etc, is not a moral   
   >>>decision but a practical one. ASSM moderators rejecting spam is no   
   >>>different from, say, Sports Illustrated rejecting an article about   
   >>>plumbing. It's not censorship. It's filtering out material that is not   
   >>>appropriate for the venue.   
   >>   
   >>I have to agree with Frank here.  Yes, there are moral censors, but   
   >>there are also, for instance, military and political censors.  As long   
   >>as they're working with, and actually using established and agreed on,   
   >>guidelines there's no problem, most of the problems, and the negative   
   >>connotations come from censors who have made value judgments based   
   >>partly or totally on their own personal opinions.   
   >   
   >Um ... I have enormous troubles with censors who use "established and   
   >agreed-upon guidelines" to censor porn,   
      
   Um...You mean real life pedos who pimp their six year old daughters   
   out to their friends?   
      
   > writing of any kind, anti-government   
   >sentiment, religious heresy, or any of about a billion other things that have   
   >been censored under guidelines by those who think they know best what is good   
   >for us to see and what isn't fit for us to know about.   
      
   Yep, wrap it up in the free speech flag, and no one will know that   
   you're a kiddie fucker.  Is that how it works?   
      
   >   
   >That's why I get my newsservice from an uncensored server, and don't have my   
   ISP   
   >remove spam from my email.  I'd much rather delete it myself and *know* what   
   I'm   
   >not bothering to look at.   
      
   Translation:  I love to look at the kiddie pr0n spam.   
      
   >   
   >Even (or sometimes especially) automatic programs following very strict   
   >guidelines can still remove things I want to see.   
      
   What do you think Google is for?   
      
   >   
   >As one example: Viruses.   
   >I used to *collect* them from email people sent me.   
   >Then I'd use what I *knew* to be malicious stuff to test my virus software.   
      
   Liar.   
      
   >I stopped bothering when Internet Worms took over; as I'd then get about a   
   >hundred samples of the same shitty program in half an hour.   
      
   And you ended up f/disking and formatting your HD, didn't you?   
      
   Fuckhead.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)