XPost: alt.sex.stories.d, alt.fan.prettyboy, alt.oyp.sworp   
   XPost: alt.hackers.malicious, alt.troll   
   From: fkhall@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:26:17 -0600, Frank McCoy    
   wrote:   
      
   >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?   
      
   I have a problem with pedophiles.   
      
   >Why am I not surprised?   
      
   Are you a pedophile, Frank?   
      
   >>>   
   >>>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*.   
      
   Do you also look a kiddie porn?   
      
   >You probably don't get the difference, do you?   
      
   I think you're being evasive, Frank.   
      
   >>>   
   >>>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 ....   
      
   Yep.  Spyware and adware.  Oughta be against the law.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
      
   Thanks.   
      
   >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.   
      
   --   
      
   "Don't even bother with this guy, Fred Hall. From what I have seen, he   
   fits into the categories of internet troll, megalomaniac and religous   
   fanatic."   
      
   Leria aka Chrissie Kidwell in Message-ID: <1141441910.744252.154   
   00@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)