Think again...(was Re: ***stop animal violence*****)

fix...@bright.next (steve) wrote:

>Ben <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> was, like, :
>->
>->This fucken animal violence e-mail shit in ascii art is extremely pissing
>->the fucking hell out of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>->
>->SO BLOODY WELL STOP IT!!!!!!!!!

>So what happened to a person's right to post what they damn well
>please? Or did someone make you moderator?

And where, I ask, does Ben even *remotely* suggest blanket censorship?
All he's expressing is his extreme annoyance at off-topic spam, the
essence of which expression most of the rest of us Usenet posters,
it's reasonably safe to say, wholeheartedly agree with.

>Many adults believe that, in order to preserve their own rights, they
>must respect the rights of others. Do you not subscribe to this
>belief?

Obviously he does, inasmuch as he clearly *subscribes* to the
reasonable assumption that an ASCII art newsgroup is setup for the
sharing and discussion of ASCII art and *not* and as an open forum for
everything else under the sun. Otherwise why have different newsgroups
at all? -- The ***stop animal violence***** poster, like all spammers,
shows absolutely no *respect* for the frequenters of other newsgroups
*right* to not have their set-aside strata polluted to overflowing
with gobs of 100% off-topic flotsam.

>I don't like pictures of animal violence, but the poor sod who posted
>it has the right to do so, imo.

Certainly,...but only to the proper group(s).

>Bitch all you want about the content,
>but you don't have the right to forbid his post.

Again, this seems to evidence your personal belief that Usenet itself
is just one big ol' generalized corkboard with no structured
categorization whatsoever. -- Have you even bothered to check out all
the non-animal-oriented groups this whole business (including your own
response, also scattered *everywhere*, thereby adding to the spam) has
actually been cross-posted to? For my own part, I intend to post
_this_ response to only the select few groups I sincerely believe
provide the proper venue, and where hopefully you'll check-back-in on
one or another of these and actually read this. -- Have a good one!

-----


-----
FOGGY

*Note: To respond via personal e-mail remove ".NOJUNK"
       (added as spambot repellant) from address.

*Also note the following...
       
Pursuant to US Code Title 47, Section 227, unsolicited commercial
E-mail sent to this address is subject to a $500 archival fee per
copy. E-mail recieved after any reciept of this notice implies
acceptance of these terms. A copy of USC Title 47, Section 227
may be found online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html

Larry Allen <lar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Foggy wrote:
>> 
>> fix...@bright.next (steve) wrote:
>> 
>> >Ben <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> was, like, :
>> >->
>> >->This fucken animal violence e-mail shit in ascii art is extremely pissing
>> >->the fucking hell out of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >->
>> >->SO BLOODY WELL STOP IT!!!!!!!!!
>> 
>> >So what happened to a person's right to post what they damn well
>> >please? Or did someone make you moderator?
>> 
>> And where, I ask, does Ben even *remotely* suggest blanket censorship?
>> All he's expressing is his extreme annoyance at off-topic spam.
>##########

>The *remotely* suggested censorship was: "SO BLOODY WELL STOP IT!!!!!!!!!"

>While I have no love for animal cruelty, it appears to me that the emotions 
>about such stuff would be better directed at the far more pervasive pattern of 
>commercial spamming. I find little difficulty in ignoring animal anything when 
>compared to the ubiquitous solicitations for making money.

>I am reminded of H.L. Menchen's insight when he said: "I am in fear of those 
>who will do me evil, but God save me from those who torture me in the name 
>of virtue."  

>So, to all who fume about cross-posts and off-topics, may I suggest that some 
>small portion of such wrath be applied to all money-making deals which 
>permeate these hallowed halls.

-----
FOGGY

*Note: To respond via personal e-mail remove ".NOJUNK"
       (added as spambot repellant) from address.

*Also note the following...
       
Pursuant to US Code Title 47, Section 227, unsolicited commercial
E-mail sent to this address is subject to a $500 archival fee per
copy. E-mail recieved after any reciept of this notice implies
acceptance of these terms. A copy of USC Title 47, Section 227
may be found online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html