1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index

Feb 8, 2001, 7:27pm

God damn you are so fucking full of yourself, Facter...and hypocritical! First you say you don't LIKE censorship in ANY way, then you censor me. Then you make an ultimatum of "either me or him". Is your self-esteem SO pathetically low that you honestly have to act THIS pathetic in order to make yourself feel bigger? Good god, Facter, take a look into the fucking mirror already.

[View Quote] > Everyone listen very clearly.
>
> I am *not* going to spend me personal time, in here, when I am under no
> obligation to do so, and watch myself, and other people in this newsgroup be
> personally attacked - As I have said, as long as he apologises to the group,
> and refraims from being so derogatory in the future, then there is a choice
> you can all make, and it can be very democratic.
>
> There are two different ways this can be done.
>
> He is to apologise -
>
> OR
>
> If he does not apologise, then the matter will be put to a vote of the users
> of the newsgroups - in a very democratic way. You guys can all take a vote,
> on whether he is to remain here, or not - if the vote says he is to stay,
> then I will no longer be posting to this newsgroup, and you guys get to keep
> him - but, you will also lose any correspondance from me here, and this
> group will go back to the way they were before I started posting in here -
> apathetic and mainly used for everyone to have a good old bitch about the
> company I work for, when they have little or no facts on which to base their
> bitching.
>
> So, there are several outcomes here, and this is how it is going to be -
> democratic, wise and I am telling you right now, I am being very nice in
> even giving these options, because the amount of people around here at the
> office, and also citizens who have just said "throw him out" has been vast.
>
> So it can be an apology and a respectful stance from Eep, or a vote. It cant
> get any fairer than that.
>
> An apology would be the easiest, most rational course I would think, but I
> want to be democratic about this also - I'm not going to decide this issue
> for everyone, as Lara nicely pointed out.
>
> Thankyou, btw.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 7:40pm

[View Quote] > sorry but I disagree.
>
> Its so easy now to use the word censorship as a veiled threat, along with
> moderated etc etc, and sure many will scream civil liberties etc etc.. but
> in a newsgroup there are similarities to real life, even if people believe
> that because its on the net and theres no personal presence they are immune
> to real world realities.
>
> If someone walked up to a kid in the street (lets say a 12 year old exchange
> student) and said hey f**kwit, learn to speak english before you open your
> mouth a**h**e... then that person would likely be looking at a court
> appearance, or a smack in the mouth depending on who heard them. Well its
> happened to people in this newsgroup, its immature, bigoted, stupid and
> unneeded, and anyone operating at that level should be restrained for the
> benefit of the community.
>
> If someone says in the newsgroup.. suck filter f**kwit its the equivalent
> of verbally walking up and hitting someone. In real life.. possible court
> appearance or smack in the mouth back depending on who said to.
>
> Currently this newsgroup is censored and moderated, its moderated by eep,
> who if you dont agree with him, you get personal attacks ad infinitum until
> you leave.

How am I censoring? I'm not deleting posts or removing the ability for some people to post here, Moria. I'm simply speaking (typing) my opinion about how people act, like you are now. But you don't see me all going off in a big tif and whining about how I want apologies from all the people who have insulted me over the years, do you? Nope. Why? Because I can take it. Facter obviously can't; he obviously lives in a happy perfect little box where all the people around him throw flower petals at his feet and kiss up to him. Sorry, but the real world don't work that way.

Most people don't like off-line as they do on-line--this includes me, but it also includes all the idiotic kids who post about their lame "organizations"/groups/gangs/clicques/whatever else they're trying to do to find identity; newbies who obnoxiously quote entire threads and sigs when replying, or who repeatedly post in HTML (combined with the former can make for some big message sizes), or who attach files; etc, etc, etc.

> Why do you think most long term users dont post here anymore??

Because AW died LONG ago and most users moved on to bigger and better things.

> Why do you think AWCI personnel stopped posting in here??

Because they can't face the truth or questions about their actions, the company, and AW. Just look at how Facter is taking it...it's quite pathetic.

> Everyone puts up with the distorted reality of a person whos only object is
> verbal terrorism in a war they have decided to take to everyone else.. its
> little short of cyber terrorism.
>
> Like any terrorist with a real or imagined war to fight, the casualties are
> the innocent, and those who have no real interest.. they have two
> choices... accept the fact by implication and just cringe when it happens,
> and hope it doesn't happen to them, or make a stand, and until people make a
> stand it will continue.
>
> This is a community, and needs some form of control. Currently that control
> is provided by eep, and that is more wrong than factor asking politely for
> what any normal person has a right to expect.
>
> I agree that from time to time eep makes a good point, but then so do many
> serious repeat offenders convicted of real world crime and locked up:)

Oh oh, now I'm analgous to a "serious repeat offender convicted of real world crime and locked up". That's classic, Moria. I suppose I'll next be likened to, oh, perhaps Satan or Hitler? Zeig heil! <stomp> Give me a fucking break.

> The fact that someones opinion is valid, invalid or whatever is no cause for
> removal from a community, either in real life by conviction, or in a
> newsgroup by banning, but when someone does not have the ability to act in
> a manner acceptable to common decency, or is bigoted, racist or violent,
> physically or verbally, then censorship has no part in the decision, it is
> protection of the community.

What community?

> Before we shout censorship, lets look at the censorship that exists here
> already.

Yes, by Facter...

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 7:42pm

Exactly...this is yet another bad move by AWCI. Censorship is censorship--PERIOD. It's already been tried in these newsgroups before, Facter, and didn't work. Think about it...

[View Quote] > Facter, I think you're a bit too into this Survivor thing. But I'll go along
> with it as the decision to remove someone is NOT to be left up to one person
> in power in my opinion (on a long term basis). No recounts should be allowed
> either. Now for a quick word. If Eep goes, who's next? Could this be the
> beginning of the end for any peace in these groups? Stay tuned...
>
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 7:43pm

Ah, yes, Facter is LETTING me apologize. How KIND of him to be SO gracious. Gee, I suppose he'll NEXT let me kiss his ass, too? Golly gee, I sure can't wait! Facter is weak since he can't handle the truth.

[View Quote] > Wing, Facter is letting Eep apologize, if he does, he can stay. Facter is
> not just banning everyone without notice. He also said we could take a vote,
> which I'd rather not, I've made that bad choice way to many times.
> Apologizing is simple and if Eep is so strong, he should be able to do it.
> So lets just wait and see.

Feb 8, 2001, 7:53pm

I never wanted this subject to be my first post to one of AW's newsgroups,
but as long as
it is being said, I am compelled to say my piece. I have read these posts
for maybe 2
months and wanted to learn, share and be a part of them but didn't want to
have to deal
with the anger I would feel (not to be interpreted as fear) when (not if) I
would be torn
apart by and subjected to eep's belittlement of my *newbie* posts. It just
wasn't worth
the frustration. I still read, and learn also, but cannot ask questions or
share anything I
might have to add. Once, by way of introducing myself to him, I corrected
his spelling of
the word hypocrite (his spelling was hipocrit) because I couldn't believe
the irony of
it.(eep replies to dennis13: " So why did you then post in HTML, idiot?
Don't be such a
fucking hipocrit.") I did this in private e-mail because 1. it was certainly
off-topic and 2.I
was not trying to publicly ridicule him, although I'm sure he doesn't
understand the
concept. I will admit though I had a need to show him he was not infallible.
He came
back with the vilest, filthiest names for me that I could imagine, and
certainly am never
usually subjected to in the church in which I happen to work. (Yes, I
mention that on
purpose) He also called me a newbie, which was certainly confusing because I
have
belonged to AW for some years, have owned worlds for some time now, and wasn
't
posting (for reasons I have mentioned) so what at related thing was I a
*newbie* ? But
anyway, I am happy to see that he has used the correct spelling in the many,
many times
he has used the word since. No eep, no thanks expected. I have sat through
these weeks
of seeing him tear people apart for his declaration of their stupidity,
worthlessness and
worst of all their imperfect English. One of these people has been a good
friend to me
and my worlds and in his citizenship of only a few months has become a very
good object
and avatar maker and shares them not only with me but with everyone else.
This person
had the audacity to be born in Germany and has not been able to keep up with
eep's (less
than perfect) command of the English language, although many of our visitors
do not
realize he is not US born until he tells them. This same person convinced me
to read the
newsgroups for what they have to offer and I then did, just in time to see
him singled out
not for what he knew, but the perceived imperfection in the language he used
to share it.
Now, many people have said just never mind eep because he does have
something useful
to say between vile cutdowns if you cower to him appropriately. Well I don't
know about
anyone else but I don't think I enjoy the prospect of looking for a few
nuggets gold (or
would that be fool's gold?) in a field riddled with land mines. My theory
would normally
be that the a person like eep has been figuratively emasculated somewhere
along the line
and that explains his combative ways, but I don't think it's fair that he
needs to do the
same to others to give himself imaginary status. I know this post is
outrageously long for
which I apologize, and I will not add any quotes so that it doesn't get any
longer, you
know what I'm talking about. But I feel so much better. Rip away, eep. My
vote is in.
CarolAnn

Feb 8, 2001, 7:56pm

Hi moria :-)

Disagreement? That's ok. Hey, after all it's an ng. :) I understand many of your points, but mainly would take a different tack on this one:

> Like any terrorist with a real or imagined war to fight, the casualties are
> the innocent, and those who have no real interest.. they have two
> choices... accept the fact by implication and just cringe when it happens,
> and hope it doesn't happen to them, or make a stand, and until people make a
> stand it will continue.

The particular *kind* of stand to make is the important thing, I think. If people feel strongly enough that a person's comments to others are too rude, too ugly, too "anything", then those people can always do just what you said - ignore it or speak up about it. If they are willing to speak up about it, preferably it's by pointing out publically, in the newsgroup thread, that the attack was unwarranted. Do I do that? No. I usually just read on; so, yes, I'm one who simply cringes with a "sheesh, why in the world doesn't he choose to deal with people in a polite, constructive manner".

I have seen many posters; however, speak up and defend people that Eep attacked unjustifiably. If that brings on a flame pointed toward the defender, that person is probably confident enough to deal with it however they wish. The rest can do what we always do if it deteriorates into a flame war - skip it or read it. Unlike on the real life street where we have no control over turning off the swearing *while it is happening* (unless we can handle it ourselves or help arrives), we do have the ability to immediately filter or start skipping or start speaking out against any poster in the ng who offends us.

You asked,
> Why do you think most long term users dont post here anymore??

Probably for a lot of reasons. For some, Eep. For others, probably any number of other reasons. The first big drop off that I noticed in posts from long term users was back during the time when these newsgroups were formally moderated.

Lara

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 7:57pm

Greets goober:)

goody we can have a discussion without swearing at each other:))

> My turn to add my two cents.rwx in here:
>
> Sorry, Moria, Facter, et al, but there is no way I can agree with
> anything you've said. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between personal
> censorship (i.e. filtering, ignoring posts, etc) and full-blown
> censorship. (banning from NGs, etc) What you are proposing is the
> latter: Complete censorship of Eep simply because his statements
> offended you.


They offend me because they are racist and biggoted, I dont care whether I
believe what he says or not or if we can have a rational discussion that
doesnt degenerate into name calling. What I am saying is that anyone who is
of this nature should expect to deal with the repercussions of their acts,
and banning someone for what is a criminal offence in some countries is not
censorship:)

In actual fact, censorship would be moderating the newsgroup and then
forwarding the post with any objectionable words taken out, or not
forwarding the post at all.. banning is not censorship, it is withdrawal of
privalege.

>
> Why do you think Eep does this sort of thing in the newsgroups? Why do
> you think he prefers to make personal attacks in the newsgroups as
> opposed to one-on-one in email or tgrams? Attention, plain and simple.

as I said, a version of terrorism. Your deffinition is quite accurate.

> He wants to make himself appear bigger and badder than the "incompetent
> twits" around him. If you filter him, effectively ignoring him, he will
> stop his pointless banter because it won't have any effect. (I've seen
> it happen many times) Personal censorship, individual censorship, is the
> answer, not outright banning.

Actually what I read here is that under your defenitions (which I contest
earlier in my post) its okay for an individual to censor anyone, but not a
group to group censor? But as I have said, banning is not censorship..
moderation may be classed as such by my reading of the meaning of the word.

If you are to ban Eep for insulting you,
> what's next? Banning people who speak ill of Rick & JP? Banning people
> for disliking an AWCI policy? Where do you draw the line?

I would personally remove the privelage (not censor) anyone who acted in the
same way, ie who came into the newsgroup as blatantly violent, racist or
biggoted, whether they were AWCI staff or a user.. makes no difference to
me who it is or what the subject under discussion is.

>
> Were Eep's attacks unwarranted? Yes, indeed they were.

Good we agree here:)


But it was
> because you chose to respond to his taunts that caused him to continue.
> If you hadn't replied to him directly and simply brushed him off (or
> filtered him outright) he would've stopped and this thread (among
> others) wouldn't be nearly as long as it is now.

He would only have stopped the thread when he had passed his insults and
people had given up so he could say I have won. Standard terrorist
tactics.. doesnt matter whether right or wrong as long as the last say goes
his way.

Therefore, you are also
> partly to blame for all this by unconsciously egging him on. (It takes
> two to tango, after all) If you had filtered him in the first place,
> none of this would've happened.
>

Actually here I agree, it should have been dealt with 4 or more years ago
when this started by banning him permanently, but that seemed harsh and
still does. I personally wont censor anyone, I have no right to so I wont
add him to a filter, but I have no problem in seeing his privaleges removed,
as I have no problem in seeing someone who commits a crime or similar in
real life serving time for it.

> And this is why the newsgroup format is *not* like real life. In real
> life, you can't click a button and make the person who attacked you
> disappear from your life. Here, you can, and that's the beauty of the
> whole system. Saying that these newsgroups are censored by Eep is
> preposterous... He can only affect you if you *let* him affect you.
>

Why should he be allowed to? you have already said the only way to stop him
is to back off, whether we are right or wrong.. thats not democracy, or
needed, thats bowing to usurped power and means he holds the power to
prevent discussion which is censorship by abstination.


> So Facter, I implore you to reconsider this proposal and let Eep stay.
> Those of us who've been here for quite sometime (myself included) have
> learned how to deal with him, and so can you.

Yep, bow under to his pressure and personally censor.. why do you feel you
have to do that?

However, if you choose to
> ban Eep from these newsgroups simply because you are unwilling to take
> any *personal* action, then I'm afraid I have no recourse but to leave
> the newsgroups as well.

Thats your choice, and I am sure we'll be sorry to see you go, but if you
feel that you have to make a personal stand against this, then its still a
free country for you to do so. Many of us took that decision years ago
when all this started by leaving the newsgroup, which again was wrong, it
was abstaining and turning the other way. In a way you could say guilty by
complacency:)

For though I may dislike Eep, I dislike
> censorship even more, and I won't be party to a so-called "community"
> that shuts out certain people simply because they rub you the wrong way.
>

Finally its not censorship, its removal of privalege, and being part of a
community means respecting the other community members and their views. You
dont have to agree with them, but you also dont need to resort to bigoted,
racist and violent behaviour if they disagree with you. Why should it
always be everyone else that backs off? :)

If you want a community, it should be that all members can get a fair say,
whether right or wrong, without being too scared to post because they think
they will get verbally assaulted if they dont agree with one person. That
is a community, not a group ruled in terror by the school playground
bully:))


Moria



> --
> Robert "Goober King" Rodehorst
> Censorship is the root of all ignorance
> rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Feb 8, 2001, 8:32pm

As I doubt Eep will apologise, I'll just skip that part...

About this vote thingy, I will not take part in it. I won't decide to have one user removed in favour of another and I will not try to "pick sides" in this argument by doing so, either. I don't think it fair for you to make us choose to either have someone from the company who provides us with fabulous support and general insight or someone who is always there to give AWCI a little bit of a challenge or a nudge. I feel that Eep has become almost a user "advocate", in that he never just lets things be explained away in a short sentence or two. After personally having a few flame wars in this newsgroup with various users, I've only filtered one. This user just would not stop posting things devoid of anything remotely intelligent. If I wanted to filter Eep from the messages I read, I would have done so by now. Simply because his "attacks" turn towards someone that has the ability to get a person banned from the newsgroup is not a reason that you cannot also simply filter him from your
newsreader. I'm sure he's said equally bad things to other people, and this is the only time in the unmoderated community newsgroup (while I've been around) that he's been threatened with being banned.

I'm not sure how much AWCI and the "community" in these newsgroups need me to keep posting here, but that is beside the point. If Eep is banned from this or any other newsgroup, I will stop posting to all of the AWCI-owned newsgroups as well. I will not tolerate a user being censored simply because someone was looking his way while he was yelling at someone this time. I would prefer very much if all of us could stay, and if you feel it to be nessecary, "then mute him".


-Agent1



[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 8:33pm

Greets eep,

Damn, this is getting long, but I hope remaining civil:)



<snip for the sake of download size>

eep,
until
>
> How am I censoring? I'm not deleting posts or removing the ability for
some people to post here, Moria. I'm simply speaking (typing) my opinion
about how people act, like you are now.

OK so sue me, but I believe you are censoring people by intimidating them
to not post by resorting to name calling, and racist/bigotted attidudes. As
you say my opinion, after all thats all anyone can post:) Yes you can say
that is a weakness on their part perhaps, but the last I looked it didnt say
you had to be a strong thick skined individual to post here, and all should
be respected for their beliefs and ideas, even if we dont agree with them.
But not agreeing with them is no reason to resort to attacking them in any
way.

> But you don't see me all going off in a big tif and whining about how I
want apologies from all the people who have insulted me over the years, do
you?

Not demanding apologies no, you usually get to the point in the second post
where you call them newbie or tell them to suck filter f**kwit and ignore
what they are saying, like I admit in some cases they ignore your points as
well:)

After all, to me you're a newbie, but I would never use that as a statement
to try and put you down, which you do seem to have a fondness for doing:)

>Nope. Why? Because I can take it.

Then prove it.. I know you can, stop resorting to name calling and put
downs and either discuss and accept that some people don't agree with you,
or if you dont think they are worth it, just don't post :)

> Facter obviously can't; he obviously lives in a happy perfect little box
where all the people around him throw flower petals at his feet and kiss up
to him. Sorry, but the real world don't work that way.

Nor does it work for everyone to accept your box and throw petals at your
feet:)


> Most people don't like off-line as they do on-line--this includes me, but
it also includes all the idiotic kids who post about their lame
"organizations"/groups/gangs/clicques/whatever else they're trying to do to
find identity; newbies who obnoxiously quote entire threads and sigs when
replying, or who repeatedly post in HTML (combined with the former can make
for some big message sizes), or who attach files; etc, etc, etc.

Hey, I agree, theres always problems, but it can be dealt with by
discussion, and discussion is two sided. Resorting to name calling etc etc
is not discussion, its the old I'm right your wrong if you cant accept that
F off.... and as everyone says about your posts, if you dont like them and
censorship is your thing. filter them and cut the thread short:)

>
>
> Because AW died LONG ago and most users moved on to bigger and better
things.
>

Not true:) AW is still very much alive, if it wasnt you wouldnt be here,
its only cause you have an audience you remain. If it had died you wouldnt
be posting, youd find somewhere else to go:) You being here is proof it
hasn't died:)

>
> Because they can't face the truth or questions about their actions, the
company, and AW. Just look at how Facter is taking it...it's quite pathetic.
>

Nope, they have better things to do that be insulted all the time. Most
people who have a common decency approach have no problem talking to the
company.. but at the end of the day when you start posts with hey you
incompetant f**k did you know that you cant program?? then you'll tend to
be ignored.

<another snip for download saving>


many
>
> Oh oh, now I'm analgous to a "serious repeat offender convicted of real
world crime and locked up". That's classic, Moria. I suppose I'll next be
likened to, oh, perhaps Satan or Hitler? Zeig heil! <stomp> Give me a
fucking break.
>

Eep, I didn't mean to make that analogy that seriously (actually on
rereading it, I accept I did but it wasnt intended as seriously as you
interpreted it), but if you push me down that road I could so much more
easily:) Don't forget, many famous names started in terrorism, of one sort
or another, and made a name for themselves by racist or biggoted attitudes.
At the end of the day they were famous, but for all the wrong reasons, and
they never won:) Your stated aim is to improve AW by whatever means.. I
can't disagree with the improve AW bit, but there are other ways, dont get
remembered for the wrong reasons:))


for
in
is
>
> What community?
>

The community that exists and you prove exists by being here attacking it..
being here is not the problem, constantly attacking anyone who wants to be
part of a community is a big problem:)

here
>
> Yes, by Facter...
>

no not by Facter, by your interpretation of the online school playground
Bully:)



Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 8:40pm

> In actual fact, censorship would be moderating the newsgroup and then
> forwarding the post with any objectionable words taken out, or not
> forwarding the post at all.. banning is not censorship, it is withdrawal
of
> privalege.


Agreed - there will be no censorship, but there will be removal of
priviledge - I will not conduct *any* removal of posts from any citizens in
this newsgroup (well, as long as they arnt hard core porn and such...you
know the deal) , if you havnt noticed, alothough I have the power to, I have
not even removed this thread where all of ther personally insulting remarks
against myself are found - and, they willb e here for as long as the
newsgroups exist.

You mistake revokation of priviledges, for censorship, which I am not
involved in in any way.

Anyways, the whole issue is in all of your hands now anyways, its up to you
guys to decide.

F.

Feb 8, 2001, 8:45pm

Amen. AWCI's yearly $20 contributions and testing services from me are
likely to end if global censorship of intelligent people for "offensive"
comments becomes a common occurance. If one or two people get nailed for
being impolite or rude, whos to say I'm not next? Censorship, once started
will always go out of control. Movies now get R ratings for having topless
men (Seems like it anyway). On radio, you can't say "shit" without a fine
being pried from you station's wallet. Online, censorship is still few and
far between. However, it's increasing in frequency by the minute. Any
company that practices censorship for somthing that users could have done
(GZs of worlds and such where there is a heavy concentration of people being
policed by PKs is almost too much) simply doesn't deserve my money. I will
NOT fund programs that slowly crack down on my rights as an American along
with the rest of the world's people. If one company adopts censorship
practices, others will follow suit. Eventually, the world will become a
place where nobody can have an opinion, speak their mind or even think their
own thoughts for fear of being politically incorrect, being gently arrested
by one white police officer and one black police officer, taken to a mixed
male/female prison and executed in the most sterile and painless way as
possible.

--
Wing
This little spot is dedicated to my girl, Jessie.
She paints her nails, and she dont know, he's got her best friend on the
phone,
She'll wash her hair, his dirty clothes, for all he gives to her. And he's
got posters on the wall
Of all the girls he wish she was, and he means everything to her. Her
boyfriend, he dont know,
Anything, about her... She's just the flavor of the week.
AW Citizen 305004 "Wing"
bathgate at prodigy.net
eyemwing at teleport.com
ICQ #101207433
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 8:50pm

Hiya:))

whoopee a discussion :))



>
> Disagreement? That's ok. Hey, after all it's an ng. :) I understand
many of your points, but mainly would take a different tack on this one:
>
are
happens,
make a
>
> The particular *kind* of stand to make is the important thing, I think.
If people feel strongly enough that a person's comments to others are too
rude, too ugly, too "anything", then those people can always do just what
you said - ignore it or speak up about it. If they are willing to speak up
about it, preferably it's by pointing out publically, in the newsgroup
thread, that the attack was unwarranted. Do I do that? No. I usually just
read on; so, yes, I'm one who simply cringes with a "sheesh, why in the
world doesn't he choose to deal with people in a polite, constructive
manner".
>

Hey sorry, wasnt trying to point fingers:) and yes for over 4 years, I have
been the same. Just got on with AW and ignored, but who knows now:)


> I have seen many posters; however, speak up and defend people that Eep
attacked unjustifiably.

This is my whole point in a way I guess, it shouldn't have to be up to
other people to jump in and defend others, people should be allowed to
state their views without fear of being verbally assaulted. After all, we
dont ever know who is on the end of the post, it could be some really sweet
little kid who loves aw and the people they have found. One post like that
could seriously hurt them, and they will get that post before they can apply
a filter.

After 4 years of this behaviour, I think its obvious that the only thing
that will protect the community is recourse to direct banning, which isn't
censorship (in my book anyway), its removal of privalege which is , also in
my book, a completely different thing:)

> If that brings on a flame pointed toward the defender, that person is
probably confident enough to deal with it however they wish. The rest can do
what we always do if it deteriorates into a flame war - skip it or read it.
Unlike on the real life street where we have no control over turning off the
swearing *while it is happening* (unless we can handle it ourselves or help
arrives), we do have the ability to immediately filter or start skipping or
start speaking out against any poster in the ng who offends us.


I agree with you here, I just don't think they should have to resort to
that:)


>
> You asked,
>
> Probably for a lot of reasons. For some, Eep. For others, probably any
number of other reasons. The first big drop off that I noticed in posts
from long term users was back during the time when these newsgroups were
formally moderated.

Agreed, and as I said in another post, I believe moderation is censorship..
banning is removal of privalege.. I dont agree with moderation, but I do
agree with banning when its justifiable, as in this case I personally think
it is, but hey thats my opinion, no-one elses, and I quite expect others to
disagree with me here:))

Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 8:51pm

Censorship, revokation of priviledges, whatever you want to call it. It's
all the same thing in this case. You're still preventing valid opinions from
reaching the ears of others.

--
Wing
This little spot is dedicated to my girl, Jessie.
She paints her nails, and she dont know, he's got her best friend on the
phone,
She'll wash her hair, his dirty clothes, for all he gives to her. And he's
got posters on the wall
Of all the girls he wish she was, and he means everything to her. Her
boyfriend, he dont know,
Anything, about her... She's just the flavor of the week.
AW Citizen 305004 "Wing"
bathgate at prodigy.net
eyemwing at teleport.com
ICQ #101207433
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 9:08pm

Greets wing:)

okay again discussion time:))


> Amen. AWCI's yearly $20 contributions and testing services from me are
> likely to end if global censorship of intelligent people for "offensive"
> comments becomes a common occurance. If one or two people get nailed for
> being impolite or rude, whos to say I'm not next? Censorship, once started
> will always go out of control.

okay, can I ask you in that case whether you are in support of racism or
biggotism? To some thats just offensive, but to others its treated as
criminal:) You see it all depends on your viewpoint, and bearing in mind
this is both international, and multi-race, should not everyone have the
common courtesy to appreciate that?

Heck, I have no problem in discussion, I have no problem in someone telling
me they disagree, but I have a serious problem in someone telling me to
shut up cause I can't speak german when I've tried to the best of my ability
and ignored my point and just attacked me for typing wrongly :)

Movies now get R ratings for having topless
> men (Seems like it anyway). On radio, you can't say "shit" without a fine
> being pried from you station's wallet. Online, censorship is still few and
> far between. However, it's increasing in frequency by the minute. Any
> company that practices censorship for somthing that users could have done
> (GZs of worlds and such where there is a heavy concentration of people
being
> policed by PKs is almost too much) simply doesn't deserve my money. I will
> NOT fund programs that slowly crack down on my rights as an American along
> with the rest of the world's people.

How about if one persons view is cracking down on the rights of many others?
Not by their view, but by the way it is put forward. Who draws the line,
and what is best for the common good. You don't want your rights taken away
by censorship and you would feel strongly enough to not be a citizen..
that's excellent, good for you, but what if you felt that someone was
forcing you to leave by threats and attitude.. wouldn't you feel they were
censoring you or worse?? Well thats what some people feel on recieving one
of these replies from eep.

Not everyones as strong as you, or from the same country, or with the same
laws and customs, why should any one person take away the rights to enjoy
aw from others?? Discussion doesnt take away peoples enjoyment, personal
attacks do.

By your defenition you agree this is bad, but you don't want to take a
decision to end it:)

Hey thats okay, we all have different views, but what I would say, and its
not just in this case here, although it seems to have brought it to the
table, is that everyone is prepared to say hell censorship is bad, mustn't
happen, takes away people rights, but when peoples rights are taken away by
other methods they are happy to say.. woooo thats okay as long as we dont
use censorship:)


If one company adopts censorship
> practices, others will follow suit. Eventually, the world will become a
> place where nobody can have an opinion, speak their mind or even think
their
> own thoughts for fear of being politically incorrect, being gently
arrested
> by one white police officer and one black police officer, taken to a mixed
> male/female prison and executed in the most sterile and painless way as
> possible.
>

But (and I had to smile here) if theres nothing thats offensive or requires
someone to be arrested (censored), why would we have cops at all, and we
most certainly wont need to execute anyone:) surely your argument backfires
at this most crucial point cause none of that will be needed.:)

Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 9:10pm

When has Eep EVER been racist? Never; at least not while I've been around.

-Agent1



[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 9:12pm

Naw, Eep's never racist...IA is lol.

--
-Xero

Feb 8, 2001, 9:30pm

Greets:)

[View Quote]
Turning round and saying hey learn english f**kwit to a person born in a
non english speaking country is a racist remark. Its the same as using
certain words to describe a coloured person because of their colour. English
is not a world standard, nor is American, nor is it an Internet standard,
there are more newsgroups and web pages in non-english than in English.
Denegration (putting down or insulting) of any person due to their colour,
home culture, home language or home beliefs because of that same colour,
culture, language or beliefs is racism as defined in the courts. Gets a bit
tricky if they were born in a country and now live in another, but it
usually refers back to country of birth.


Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 9:35pm

[View Quote] >
> They offend me because they are racist and biggoted, I dont care whether I
> believe what he says or not or if we can have a rational discussion that
> doesnt degenerate into name calling. What I am saying is that anyone who is
> of this nature should expect to deal with the repercussions of their acts,
> and banning someone for what is a criminal offence in some countries is not
> censorship:)
>
> In actual fact, censorship would be moderating the newsgroup and then
> forwarding the post with any objectionable words taken out, or not
> forwarding the post at all.. banning is not censorship, it is withdrawal of
> privalege.

Ah but it's NOT a criminal offense in the US, which is where AWCI is located and of which I am a citizen.

>
> as I said, a version of terrorism. Your deffinition is quite accurate.
>
>
> Actually what I read here is that under your defenitions (which I contest
> earlier in my post) its okay for an individual to censor anyone, but not a
> group to group censor? But as I have said, banning is not censorship..
> moderation may be classed as such by my reading of the meaning of the word.
>
> If you are to ban Eep for insulting you,
>
> I would personally remove the privelage (not censor) anyone who acted in the
> same way, ie who came into the newsgroup as blatantly violent, racist or
> biggoted, whether they were AWCI staff or a user.. makes no difference to
> me who it is or what the subject under discussion is.
>
> But it was
>
> He would only have stopped the thread when he had passed his insults and
> people had given up so he could say I have won. Standard terrorist
> tactics.. doesnt matter whether right or wrong as long as the last say goes
> his way.

All Facter had to do was answer my question in my email to him instead of giving me the typica AWCI brushoff... <shrug>

> Therefore, you are also
>
> Actually here I agree, it should have been dealt with 4 or more years ago
> when this started by banning him permanently, but that seemed harsh and
> still does. I personally wont censor anyone, I have no right to so I wont
> add him to a filter, but I have no problem in seeing his privaleges removed,
> as I have no problem in seeing someone who commits a crime or similar in
> real life serving time for it.

You keep interchangeably using "privilege" (note correct spelling) and "ban". Taking away my "privilege" (right, more like it since I'm an AW citizen and citizens have the RIGHT to post in these newsgroups--PERIOD) IS banning me from posting. Duh.

>
> Why should he be allowed to? you have already said the only way to stop him
> is to back off, whether we are right or wrong.. thats not democracy, or
> needed, thats bowing to usurped power and means he holds the power to
> prevent discussion which is censorship by abstination.

No discussion is prevented since I am not taking away people's ability to post. If anything, it's about self-esteem. Many people I flame have it coming, which is why they eventually shut up and move on.

>
> Yep, bow under to his pressure and personally censor.. why do you feel you
> have to do that?

Lose the monarchness about this, Moria; it's not about power but staying on-topic. A LOT of idiots I flame are because they post off-topic or act incompetent. Don't act like a twit and I won't flame you; act like a twit and I WILL flame you--it's that simple. Don't like it? Filter me. It's still that simple.

> However, if you choose to
>
> Thats your choice, and I am sure we'll be sorry to see you go, but if you
> feel that you have to make a personal stand against this, then its still a
> free country for you to do so. Many of us took that decision years ago
> when all this started by leaving the newsgroup, which again was wrong, it
> was abstaining and turning the other way. In a way you could say guilty by
> complacency:)

Funny as you're the first person to mention the "mass exodus" because of me, when I've read numerous discussions about how it was actually AWCI's ineptness in dealing with AW's users that caused people to leave. Might want to get your facts straight, Moria.

> For though I may dislike Eep, I dislike
>
> Finally its not censorship, its removal of privalege, and being part of a
> community means respecting the other community members and their views. You
> dont have to agree with them, but you also dont need to resort to bigoted,
> racist and violent behaviour if they disagree with you. Why should it
> always be everyone else that backs off? :)
>
> If you want a community, it should be that all members can get a fair say,
> whether right or wrong, without being too scared to post because they think
> they will get verbally assaulted if they dont agree with one person. That
> is a community, not a group ruled in terror by the school playground
> bully:))

There you go again with more analogies. Here's one of my own I'm sure you've heard of before: AWCI is Big Brother. AWCI is a dictator. Wee...aren't analogies fun? If some people are too "scared" to post here simply because of how *I* post, then their self-esteems are so low their posts probably wouldn't have much useful content anyway. Regardless, if you want to play cute little social politeness mind games, go somewhere else. I didn't come to these newsgroups for lessons in social etiquette but to get information and to discuss AW issues. Not everyone is a social butterfly who kisses up to everyone to get their support and/or acceptance. Not everyone has such a low self-esteem. Not everyone needs such external gratification. In short, Moria, Facter, and anyone else, not everyone is like you. Now get over it.

Feb 8, 2001, 9:36pm

for some reason it seems to me that if you stuck eeps name in there, most of
that applies to him too..

--
J B E L L
http://platinum.awjbell.com
G O I N G P L A T I N U M
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 9:50pm

[View Quote] > Greets eep,

Shah, you want greets but are in the process of getting me banned from the newsgroups? Give me a fucking break, Moria.

> eep,
> until
> some people to post here, Moria. I'm simply speaking (typing) my opinion
> about how people act, like you are now.
>
> OK so sue me, but I believe you are censoring people by intimidating them
> to not post by resorting to name calling, and racist/bigotted attidudes. As
> you say my opinion, after all thats all anyone can post:) Yes you can say
> that is a weakness on their part perhaps, but the last I looked it didnt say
> you had to be a strong thick skined individual to post here, and all should
> be respected for their beliefs and ideas, even if we dont agree with them.
> But not agreeing with them is no reason to resort to attacking them in any
> way.

You need to look up the word "censor" in the dictionary, Moria. I'm not censoring at all. Just because my skin may be thicker than most people's hardly constitutes me as censoring others simply because I can take more abuse. You have a distorted view of censorship if you believe that.

> want apologies from all the people who have insulted me over the years, do
> you?
>
> Not demanding apologies no, you usually get to the point in the second post
> where you call them newbie or tell them to suck filter f**kwit and ignore
> what they are saying, like I admit in some cases they ignore your points as
> well:)

Then what's the problem? Some people deal with people they don't like by ignoring them, others filter, I reply with attacks. So the fuck what. Be glad I'm not hunting you all down and killing you...

> After all, to me you're a newbie, but I would never use that as a statement
> to try and put you down, which you do seem to have a fondness for doing:)
>
>
> Then prove it.. I know you can, stop resorting to name calling and put
> downs and either discuss and accept that some people don't agree with you,
> or if you dont think they are worth it, just don't post :)

Uh, you must not read my posts very carefully or you would see that, at times between the insults, I am trying to understand the person I'm insulting. With Facter, for example, I gave him numerous chances to simply explain why the newsgroups were truly taken down. He didn't catch on. Only after continually insulting him and dragging it out into this long thread did the reason finally come out of his stubborn ass--and it's still kind of vague, but enough to shut me up about bugging him about it. But, no, he wanted to play the runaround game instead and now get ME banned from the newsgroups because of HIS incompetence--that's rich.

> where all the people around him throw flower petals at his feet and kiss up
> to him. Sorry, but the real world don't work that way.
>
> Nor does it work for everyone to accept your box and throw petals at your
> feet:)

If asking for a SIMPLE explanation about something is asking to be worshipped, you have another severe distorted understanding, Moria.

> it also includes all the idiotic kids who post about their lame
> "organizations"/groups/gangs/clicques/whatever else they're trying to do to
> find identity; newbies who obnoxiously quote entire threads and sigs when
> replying, or who repeatedly post in HTML (combined with the former can make
> for some big message sizes), or who attach files; etc, etc, etc.
>
> Hey, I agree, theres always problems, but it can be dealt with by
> discussion, and discussion is two sided. Resorting to name calling etc etc
> is not discussion, its the old I'm right your wrong if you cant accept that
> F off.... and as everyone says about your posts, if you dont like them and
> censorship is your thing. filter them and cut the thread short:)

I usally DO end up filtering the most persistent, idiotic twits who just don't get it, Moria. But I won't usually filter initially without responding. <shrug>

> things.
>
> Not true:) AW is still very much alive, if it wasnt you wouldnt be here,
> its only cause you have an audience you remain. If it had died you wouldnt
> be posting, youd find somewhere else to go:) You being here is proof it
> hasn't died:)

GEE YOU'RE QUICK SPORT. This doesn't even deserve any more of a response from me.

> company, and AW. Just look at how Facter is taking it...it's quite pathetic.
>
> Nope, they have better things to do that be insulted all the time. Most
> people who have a common decency approach have no problem talking to the
> company.. but at the end of the day when you start posts with hey you
> incompetant f**k did you know that you cant program?? then you'll tend to
> be ignored.

Then AWCI could simply filter me in THEIR newsreaders. But, no, instead they would rather simply not deal with their users (I'm hardly the only one who complains about AWCI's ineptness--it's being exampled right now from you and Facter).

> many
> world crime and locked up". That's classic, Moria. I suppose I'll next be
> likened to, oh, perhaps Satan or Hitler? Zeig heil! <stomp> Give me a
> fucking break.
>
> Eep, I didn't mean to make that analogy that seriously (actually on
> rereading it, I accept I did but it wasnt intended as seriously as you
> interpreted it), but if you push me down that road I could so much more
> easily:) Don't forget, many famous names started in terrorism, of one sort
> or another, and made a name for themselves by racist or biggoted attitudes.
> At the end of the day they were famous, but for all the wrong reasons, and
> they never won:) Your stated aim is to improve AW by whatever means.. I
> can't disagree with the improve AW bit, but there are other ways, dont get
> remembered for the wrong reasons:))

<shrug>

> for
> in
> is
>
> The community that exists and you prove exists by being here attacking it..
> being here is not the problem, constantly attacking anyone who wants to be
> part of a community is a big problem:)

I attack those who don't add to the community in any meaningful way to me. <shrug>

> here
>
> no not by Facter, by your interpretation of the online school playground
> Bully:)

And your abuse of smileys? Wee...

Feb 8, 2001, 9:51pm

Well you're one of the newer breed of AWCI employees, I guess you could say.
You seem to care more about the community than making money, and for that I
respect you. But as long as you get that AWCI pay check in the mail every
week, I can only think of you as "one of them". I am being sort of
stereotypical here, but everyone who is associated with AWCI wants to make
money. That's what running a business is all about. But it's AWCI who
crosses the line and puts money over community and mind over matter.

JP nor Rick will even bother to answer a single telegram or email unless it
has the words "money" in the subject line, or if it's from someone who gets
an AWCI pay check. It's there company and if they want it to go down the
shit hole like Worlds Inc. did, then be my guest and do so at your own free
will. I am just warning you.


[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 9:52pm

lol yeah it's ok heh

[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 9:54pm

How is Eep or anyone to know first-hand if the person is in a country
that does not use English as a primary language? It's rude, not
racist.

[View Quote] >
>Greets:)
>
[View Quote]
- Tony56 (Tony M.) [chandler56 at mail.com]
"All typos are optical illusions"
____________________________________________________________

Feb 8, 2001, 10:02pm

Not racist. Saying (And I quote a 6th grader on my school bus) "Shut up
black bitch" is racist. Eep normally explains himself in the same post or
later in the thread. These newsgroups are an english based textual
communication form. English is the dominant (only) language and using it
effectively is a M U S T. Bad grammar goes unnoticed until Eep runs out of
other barbs to throw at you in an arguement. Well, so long as that grammar
is good enough to be understandable anyway. You can tell how many people are
from non-english speaking countries in these groups simply by looking at
their replies. Instead of
[View Quote] --
Wing
This little spot is dedicated to my girl, Jessie.
She paints her nails, and she dont know, he's got her best friend on the
phone,
She'll wash her hair, his dirty clothes, for all he gives to her. And he's
got posters on the wall
Of all the girls he wish she was, and he means everything to her. Her
boyfriend, he dont know,
Anything, about her... She's just the flavor of the week.
AW Citizen 305004 "Wing"
bathgate at prodigy.net
eyemwing at teleport.com
ICQ #101207433
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 10:05pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] But it is antisocial behavior and as such, is subject to the laws governing that behavior.

>
>
> All Facter had to do was answer my question in my email to him instead of giving me the typica AWCI brushoff... <shrug>

"typica" ? what the hell is that eep. If you can't spell don't post newbe.

>
>
>
> You keep interchangeably using "privilege" (note correct spelling) and "ban". Taking away my "privilege" (right, more like it since I'm an AW citizen and citizens have the RIGHT to post in these newsgroups--PERIOD) IS banning me from posting. Duh.
>

Where does it say that you have the "right" to the newsgroups eep. Show us or shut up.


>
>
> No discussion is prevented since I am not taking away people's ability to post. If anything, it's about self-esteem. Many people I flame have it coming, which is why they eventually shut up and move on.
>

Don't give yourself so much credit eep... Most of the time you're not worth responding to.


>
>
> Lose the monarchness about this, Moria; it's not about power but staying on-topic. A LOT of idiots I flame are because they post off-topic or act incompetent. Don't act like a twit and I won't flame you; act like a twit and I WILL flame you--it's that simple. Don't like it? Filter me. It's still that simple.
>

Incompetence is relative. Move on.


>
>
> Funny as you're the first person to mention the "mass exodus" because of me, when I've read numerous discussions about how it was actually AWCI's ineptness in dealing with AW's users that caused people to leave. Might want to get your facts straight, Moria.
>
>
> There you go again with more analogies. Here's one of my own I'm sure you've heard of before: AWCI is Big Brother. AWCI is a dictator. Wee...aren't analogies fun?

Eep, gads you're slow... AWCI isn't any of those things..They are the owners of a business..How they run that business is their concern not your... Unless, of course you own stock in AWLD... Do you? I thought not.. Next...

> If some people are too "scared" to post here simply because of how *I* post, then their self-esteems are so low their posts probably wouldn't have much useful content anyway. Regardless, if you want to play cute little social politeness mind games, go somewhere else. I didn't come to these newsgroups for lessons in social etiquette but to get information and to discuss AW issues.

Yeah, right. No eep, you come here to get your rocks off trying to belittle others. I have been looking at the last months posts from you and guess what. Not a one is aimed at answering a question in a decent manner. Not one is an inquiry as in asking a question. Except ofcourse for the flames shot at other people or AW. twit.


> Not everyone is a social butterfly who kisses up to everyone to get their support and/or acceptance. Not everyone has such a low self-esteem. Not everyone needs such external gratification. In short, Moria, Facter, and anyone else, not everyone is like you. Now get over it.

You are correct here eep. Not everyone needs to listen to your rants either. But, that is the only gratification you get, so I guess we (the poor pathetic vast majority of "civilized" posters) will have to get along without you.. Now you get over it.

Holistic1

Feb 8, 2001, 10:07pm

Moria thinks when I insult people because they don't know English very well it's considering "racism". He has many distorted definitions...

[View Quote] > When has Eep EVER been racist? Never; at least not while I've been around.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 10:12pm

Greets eep:)

Ive cut out all the bits you didnt reply to, am trying to get these posts
back to a manageable size:)

whether I
who is
acts,
not
withdrawal of
>
> Ah but it's NOT a criminal offense in the US, which is where AWCI is
located and of which I am a citizen.

Racism and biggotism is not a criminal offence in the USA? you do surprise
me:) Is it a civil offence then??

continue.
goes
>
> All Facter had to do was answer my question in my email to him instead of
giving me the typica AWCI brushoff... <shrug>

Hey I am not saying you were right or Facter was right, what I am saying is
that whatever you felt, you could have done it without degenerating to
flames and name calling.. you could have discussed. If you took the
blinkers off, and stopped assuming that everyone who is connected with AW or
has been is out to get you, then that paranoid resort to flaming may take a
little more to ignite:)


ago
wont
removed,
>
> You keep interchangeably using "privilege" (note correct spelling)

correction noted, thank you:)

>and "ban". Taking away my "privilege" (right, more like it since I'm an AW
citizen and citizens have the RIGHT to post in these newsgroups--PERIOD) IS
banning me from posting. Duh.

No citizens have the privilege (see I learned) to post here, the AW pages
say that to post to these newsgroups you must be a citizen.. it doesnt say
that every citizen has the right to post to them. For someone as keen on
semantics as you, I would have thought you would have picked up on that
one:)


> No discussion is prevented since I am not taking away people's ability to
post. If anything, it's about self-esteem. Many people I flame have it
coming, which is why they eventually shut up and move on.

This is where we primarily disagree:)) You believe (I think) that its up
to peoples own self esteem as to whether they post or not, please correct me
if I am wrong, whereas I say I agree with that in principle, but I don't
believe anyone has the right to belittle that self esteem deliberately by
using offensive language and deliberate belittling remarks:)

>
>
> Lose the monarchness about this, Moria; it's not about power but staying
on-topic. A LOT of idiots I flame are because they post off-topic or act
incompetent. Don't act like a twit and I won't flame you; act like a twit
and I WILL flame you--it's that simple. Don't like it? Filter me. It's still
that simple.

Hey don't get me wrong, I agree that staying on topic, and acting
incompetent is annoying, but why flame, why not ignore?

Theres flame and flame, and usually the person who flames first is flaming
because they have no rational ability to discuss, which I know is not true
in your case:)


>
> Funny as you're the first person to mention the "mass exodus" because of
me, when I've read numerous discussions about how it was actually AWCI's
ineptness in dealing with AW's users that caused people to leave. Might want
to get your facts straight, Moria.

Don't worry eep, all my facts are straight:) It's just in my case they are
not always remembered in a way to back up my own argument:))

Theres at least one other poster here from that period whos mentioned it
too, and along with another reason which was moderation of the newsgroup,
and we all know why it had to be moderated don't we:)) In fact, this is
very similar to what happened then:))

>
say,
think
That
>
> There you go again with more analogies. Here's one of my own I'm sure
you've heard of before: AWCI is Big Brother. AWCI is a dictator.

Yep good analogies, have no problem with those :))

> Wee...aren't analogies fun? If some people are too "scared" to post here
simply because of how *I* post, then their self-esteems are so low their
posts probably wouldn't have much useful content anyway.

Thats a huge generalisation and its your opinion.. nothing wrong with that,
but in that case, if you dont want to hear them because they are beneath you
in your opinion filter them, dont insult them. Posting a flame doesnt
increase your self esteem (I hope) all it does is bully the person, hence
my analogy.

>Regardless, if you want to play cute little social politeness mind games,
go somewhere else. I didn't come to these newsgroups for lessons in social
etiquette but to get information and to discuss AW issues.

Discuss and flame are two mutually exclusive options. By all means discuss,
just dont assume that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. They may be
wrong in your opinion, but your opinion is all you can give, you can't
enforce your opinion on others, certainly not by flaming them, if you do
its you who appears weak, to me at any rate:)

> Not everyone is a social butterfly who kisses up to everyone to get their
support and/or acceptance. Not everyone has such a low self-esteem. Not
everyone needs such external gratification. In short, Moria, Facter, and
anyone else, not everyone is like you. Now get over it.

I have nothing to get over, I am just stating my opinion, and it is a
personal opinion, no need to bring Facter back into this:)

I believe, and I said it in the post before you could be very good for AW,
you have some good points and great ideas, but your manner of approach will
negate all of the good and drive it underground and people onto the
defensive.

You didnt come here for social ettiquette, I agree, it would be presumptious
of me to try and teach it to you.. you have to live with what youve got,
but don't blame others if thats lacking:)) Live with it and get over it:)))


Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 10:13pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Uh, I SERIOUSLY doubt that. Show me proof.

> Denegration (putting down or insulting) of any person due to their colour,
> home culture, home language or home beliefs because of that same colour,
> culture, language or beliefs is racism as defined in the courts. Gets a bit
> tricky if they were born in a country and now live in another, but it
> usually refers back to country of birth.

If someone is going to attempt to use a language they don't know very well to communicate with, the had better learn it better. The people I usually insult (and usually after they have insulted me) because of this is VERY few. You're just trying to find more reasons to ban me.

Feb 8, 2001, 10:18pm

censorship - n. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor - v. To examine and expurgate.
expurgate - v. To remove material that is perceived as erroneous,
vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable. (from a book, for example)

Now explain to me how this does NOT apply to Eep's situation. (The
"material" here being Eep and his opinions)

[View Quote] Last I checked, insulting someone is NOT a criminal offense. And Eep
DOES have repercussions for his actions: being ignored. If someone
doesn't agree with his opinions or attitudes, they have the option of
filtering him and never having to hear from him again. And since Eep
thrives on attention, I would think ignoring him would be a far worse
punishment than banning him. :)

>
> In actual fact, censorship would be moderating the newsgroup and then
> forwarding the post with any objectionable words taken out, or not
> forwarding the post at all.. banning is not censorship, it is withdrawal of
> privalege.
>

The act of banning may not be censorship, but the actions behind it is
what makes it censorship. If someone came in here and started spamming
the NGs with all sorts of ads, then I would say banning is in order
because 1) the person is not posting about things pertaining to AW, and
2) the person obviously has no interest in contributing to the
community. But if a person can be banned simply for stating their
opinions, whether they happen to offend someone or not, then this is a
truly sad situation indeed.

>
> as I said, a version of terrorism. Your deffinition is quite accurate.
>
>
> Actually what I read here is that under your defenitions (which I contest
> earlier in my post) its okay for an individual to censor anyone, but not a
> group to group censor? But as I have said, banning is not censorship..
> moderation may be classed as such by my reading of the meaning of the word.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "personal"
censorship and "communal" censorship. Personal censorship means deciding
for yourself what you (and ONLY you) should see/read/hear. Communal
censorship is when a person/persons who are in charge of the community
decide for everyone in the community what should be seen/read/heard.
Personal censorship affects no one else other than yourself and the
thing being censored. Communal censorship means that whoever is in
charge of the community forces everyone to believe what he/she/they
believe by removing anything that doesn't agree with them. And this is
what Facter is trying to do. He is removing Eep simply because he
disagreed and insulted him. Did he insult the entire community? No. Then
why should he be removed from the entire community? Facter needs to take
responsibility for himself and take Eep out of his own personal
equation, instead of forcing his feelings upon the rest of us.

>
> If you are to ban Eep for insulting you,
>
> I would personally remove the privelage (not censor) anyone who acted in the
> same way, ie who came into the newsgroup as blatantly violent, racist or
> biggoted, whether they were AWCI staff or a user.. makes no difference to
> me who it is or what the subject under discussion is.
>

Then you would be just as guilty as Facter. In fact, you would be
instituting the very "terrorism" you claim that Eep is causing. In that
situation, people would be afraid to disagree with AWCI or it's actions
because they might be banned from the NGs if they ever said a
discouraging word about AWCI. Frankly, I'd rather "fear" Eep.

>
> Good we agree here:)
>
> But it was
>
> He would only have stopped the thread when he had passed his insults and
> people had given up so he could say I have won. Standard terrorist
> tactics.. doesnt matter whether right or wrong as long as the last say goes
> his way.

How can Eep say he's won the fight if no one fights him? If no one
replies to his posts and simply ignores him, how can Eep claim victory?
Do you really think Eep would continue to post if he knew no one was
listening to him? I would think not... In fact, banning him would
probably be Eep's greatest victory ever, because it would prove all of
his ranting about AWCI and their tactics RIGHT! Now, do you really want
to prove Eep right? ;)

>
> Therefore, you are also
>
> Actually here I agree, it should have been dealt with 4 or more years ago
> when this started by banning him permanently, but that seemed harsh and
> still does. I personally wont censor anyone, I have no right to so I wont
> add him to a filter, but I have no problem in seeing his privaleges removed,
> as I have no problem in seeing someone who commits a crime or similar in
> real life serving time for it.
>

Again, posting your opinions on a subject is not a crime; if so, then I
should be banned from these newsgroups as well. And, no offense, but if
you don't think you have the right to decide for yourself what to
see/read/hear, (through personal censorship; i.e. filtering) then I must
wonder if you have any convictions at all...

>
> Why should he be allowed to? you have already said the only way to stop him
> is to back off, whether we are right or wrong.. thats not democracy, or
> needed, thats bowing to usurped power and means he holds the power to
> prevent discussion which is censorship by abstination.
>

Again, how can we "back off" if we never engage him in the first place?
"Discussion" implies that more than one person is involved. If you don't
want to hear what he has to say, then continue the discussion without
him and don't even acknowledge him. Is that really so hard?

>
> Yep, bow under to his pressure and personally censor.. why do you feel you
> have to do that?

Somehow, I sincerely doubt Eep acts the way he does just so he can get
filtered. If that was the case, then I would've filtered him as soon as
I got here all those years ago. I can honestly say that I've never had
to filter anyone in this newsgroup my entire time here. Why? Because I
feel that everyone has something to contribute to the community. (yes,
even Eep) Yes, the ways in which they present their contributions are
different, but they are contributions nonetheless. And to remove someone
from the community simply because someone else doesn't agree/like that
contribution may not be "censorship" according to whatever definition
you subscribe to, but it's still wrong.

>
> However, if you choose to
>
> Thats your choice, and I am sure we'll be sorry to see you go, but if you
> feel that you have to make a personal stand against this, then its still a
> free country for you to do so. Many of us took that decision years ago
> when all this started by leaving the newsgroup, which again was wrong, it
> was abstaining and turning the other way. In a way you could say guilty by
> complacency:)

I will agree that it's a shame if people leave the NGs because of Eep's
tirades. However, it wouldn't be a shame for the NGs, it would be a
shame for the person who left, because he/she couldn't stand up for what
they believed and had the strength to remove Eep from their personal
equation. These are the people that need to empower themselves, not run
from the first sign of conflict.

>
> For though I may dislike Eep, I dislike
>
> Finally its not censorship, its removal of privalege, and being part of a
> community means respecting the other community members and their views. You
> dont have to agree with them, but you also dont need to resort to bigoted,
> racist and violent behaviour if they disagree with you. Why should it
> always be everyone else that backs off? :)

Once again, if you don't engage him, you don't have to back off. Think
of Eep as the raving lunatic you might encounter on a street corner. Do
you stop and try to counter his nonsensical arguments, or do you simply
keep on walking. I would hope (for your sanity's sake) you would choose
the latter. The only way Eep can "win" an arguement is if someone
actually argues with him. It's the other person that makes a conscious
decision to "awaken the beast", if you will. If people would take it
upon themselves to decide for themselves what's best for them, perhaps
Eep would realize that his actions alienate everyone around him, and
change his attitude. But as long as people continue to respond to it,
then, to him, it's still an effective form of communication.

>
> If you want a community, it should be that all members can get a fair say,
> whether right or wrong, without being too scared to post because they think
> they will get verbally assaulted if they dont agree with one person. That
> is a community, not a group ruled in terror by the school playground
> bully:))
>

And here you contradict everything you have just stated previously. Are
you giving Eep his fair say by banning him? Certainly not. By banning a
person, you are giving that person NO say in anything, and that, by your
own (correct) definition of "community", is wrong. I know I will not
tolerate such actions in any community I participate in, and it's clear
that I am not the only one who thinks this way. If Facter goes through
with banning Eep (or even goes through with this voting process, thereby
making it a "him or me" scenario) then I will have no choice but to
submit to Facter's "terrorism" and leave these newsgroups. Because that
is exactly what this is: Terrorism. Intimidation. Control. By making the
community have to choose between one person or another, simply because
one of those people can't assume responsibility for his own beliefs,
then you have effectively divided the community that you are so
desperate to hold together in an attempt to make them believe what you
believe. (In this case, that Eep does not belong here)

The fate of the community rests in Facter's hands... not Eep's. I pray
that Facter will use that power wisely, or not at all...

--
Robert Rodehorst
Censorship is the root of all ignorance...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Feb 8, 2001, 10:27pm

[View Quote] located and of which I am a citizen.
>
> But it is antisocial behavior and as such, is subject to the laws
governing that behavior.
>

Laws governing antisocial behavior? BULLSHIT.



--
Wing
This little spot is dedicated to my girl, Jessie.
She paints her nails, and she dont know, he's got her best friend on the
phone,
She'll wash her hair, his dirty clothes, for all he gives to her. And he's
got posters on the wall
Of all the girls he wish she was, and he means everything to her. Her
boyfriend, he dont know,
Anything, about her... She's just the flavor of the week.
AW Citizen 305004 "Wing"
bathgate at prodigy.net
eyemwing at teleport.com
ICQ #101207433

1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index