XPost: alt.sex.stories.d, alt.fan.prettyboy, alt.oyp.sworp
XPost: alt.hackers.malicious, alt.troll
From: mccoyf@millcomm.com
In alt.sex.stories.d Fred Hall wrote:
>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?
>
So you have problems with Free Speech?
Why am I not surprised?
>>
>>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.
>
Nope. I like to read *stories*.
You probably don't get the difference, do you?
>>
>>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?
>
Google is censored. They say so.
There are many things they don't allow through their filters.
>>
>>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've still got most of them.
I stopped running the tests about five years ago though.
>>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?
>
Nope. Unlike most idiots who blindly click on just about anything they get in
email, I've never actually *run* any of those programs. Though I'll admit that
I accidentally got a couple in my system from idiots down at work who weren't
so
careful. I've also picked up a few from supposedly "clean" software from
commercial places; even packaged software from stores have been known to carry
shit.
It's not just viruses and worms these days: All these "helper" programs that
are actually adware intended to send your browser to places that are trying to
SELL you crap instead of where you really want to go, often come *packaged*
with
commercial software you really want to use. With "help" like that ....
Thank Goodness for decent detection software from people OTHER than McAfee and
Norton. They're only recently getting the idea that spyware and adware are
just
as obnoxious and unwanted as worms and viruses.
>Fuckhead.
Idiot.
Some people trust anything and everybody; assuming that anything they get sent
from a "friend" or buy commercially is exactly what it's purported to be.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
