Re: Does John Gilmore...

> On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
> > Black Unicorn writes:
> > > Dave Hayes writes:
> > > > > Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast.
> > > > Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture?
> > > That which is broadcast is certainly speech.
> > > Trying to draw some kind of "right to be broadcast" as a result is
> > > stupidity or ignorance, or both.
> > Then I suppose you want to control all mailing lists, USENET groups,
> > and web pages. These are broadcasts, and of course they have no rights
> > other than what you seem to want to give them.
> If I owned it, of course I would control it.  

If you really owned it, you would not need to control it. 

> You are simply exhibiting the symptoms of a spoiled brat because you have
> been fortunate enough, thus far, to rely on the benevolance of whoever is
> providing you your newsfeed.  

Methinks you know not to whom you are speaking to. Those that know may
see just how the seeds of assumptions are sown in this person's mindset.

> The fact that control is not exercised, does not mean it doesn't
> exist.  In reality control is exercised in many ways.

The fact that control exists does not mean it is effective, necessary,
or appropriate. Unchecked need to control is merely an outward sign of
a lack of inner control, which is a disease most control freaks have. 

> Thus your attempt to demonize me merely exposes your ire for the system as
> it now exists, your fanciful dreams of how it should be aside.

I am not attempting to demonize you...you do that to yourself well
enough. I have no interest in your support or opposition, other than
as a tool to show those who can see where certain specific attitudes
come from.

> This is where you fail, with the basic inability to distinguish ownership
> of intellectual content and the right to compell its broadcast by whomever
> might control the medium.

I maintain that it is neither appropriate nor in any sense beneficial
to apply this kind of draconian control to internet communication in
the general sense.

> > > Learn the difference.  Go to law school before you argue free speech
> > > concepts in any detail.  
> > "Laws" do not cover the net's "multicast" technology.
> >Snort<  I suppose you live in the only true anarchy?

Why is it that when less regulation is desirable, the kneejerk
response is to declare that desire anarchistic? 

Human attempts at creating and imposing "law" are arbitrary,
inefficient, and subject to change based on the whim of those 
who claim to own their implementation.

> > Distinguishing communication types so as to control those who use them
> > is not going to solve your problem. You are much better off, from a
> > practical standpoint, learning to control what you see and hear rather
> > than attempting to control others. 
> I'm not sure what the above babble means.  

Hence your attempt to control others.

> I'm not sure you are either.

Hence your inability to understand the concept of "honor".

> > One does not need a school to see this, it sits under one's nose like
> > a milk moustache.
> This is the uneducated man's excuse.

"Education" has very little to do with knowledge and a lot more to do
with external approval, in the sense you appear to be using it.
"Indoctrination" and "Conditioning" are the two terms that best fit
your apparent notion. 

We all know how far those have gotten us in the past 2000 years.
One can see this "progress" by looking at the net's attempts to control
Mr. Grubor...
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be abolished.

As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually stung to death
by scorpions.

Somebody censored the header in this article,
and we put it back.  You know, that is the worst
kind of censorship, when somebody attempts to avoid the issue.

This whole case started with Vulis who is heterosexual vs.
John Gilmore who is homosexual.  The fact is that homosexuals
must not be allowed to have any "control" priveleges on this
Internet any more.

The question is, does this John Gilmore really take it
up the ass?  Whether or not he is a FAGGOT is a very relevant issue
here, and it must not be overlooked.

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:

> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:27:53 -0800
> From: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore... 
> 
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
> > > Black Unicorn writes:
> > > > Dave Hayes writes:
> > > > > > Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast.
> > > > > Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture?
> > > > That which is broadcast is certainly speech.
> > > > Trying to draw some kind of "right to be broadcast" as a result is
> > > > stupidity or ignorance, or both.
> > > Then I suppose you want to control all mailing lists, USENET groups,
> > > and web pages. These are broadcasts, and of course they have no rights
> > > other than what you seem to want to give them.
> > If I owned it, of course I would control it.  
> 
> If you really owned it, you would not need to control it. 
> 
> > You are simply exhibiting the symptoms of a spoiled brat because you have
> > been fortunate enough, thus far, to rely on the benevolance of whoever is
> > providing you your newsfeed.  
> 
> Methinks you know not to whom you are speaking to. Those that know may
> see just how the seeds of assumptions are sown in this person's mindset.
> 
> > The fact that control is not exercised, does not mean it doesn't
> > exist.  In reality control is exercised in many ways.
> 
> The fact that control exists does not mean it is effective, necessary,
> or appropriate. Unchecked need to control is merely an outward sign of
> a lack of inner control, which is a disease most control freaks have. 
> 
> > Thus your attempt to demonize me merely exposes your ire for the system as
> > it now exists, your fanciful dreams of how it should be aside.
> 
> I am not attempting to demonize you...you do that to yourself well
> enough. I have no interest in your support or opposition, other than
> as a tool to show those who can see where certain specific attitudes
> come from.
> 
> > This is where you fail, with the basic inability to distinguish ownership
> > of intellectual content and the right to compell its broadcast by whomever
> > might control the medium.
> 
> I maintain that it is neither appropriate nor in any sense beneficial
> to apply this kind of draconian control to internet communication in
> the general sense.
> 
> > > > Learn the difference.  Go to law school before you argue free speech
> > > > concepts in any detail.  
> > > "Laws" do not cover the net's "multicast" technology.
> > >Snort<  I suppose you live in the only true anarchy?
> 
> Why is it that when less regulation is desirable, the kneejerk
> response is to declare that desire anarchistic? 
> 
> Human attempts at creating and imposing "law" are arbitrary,
> inefficient, and subject to change based on the whim of those 
> who claim to own their implementation.
> 
> > > Distinguishing communication types so as to control those who use them
> > > is not going to solve your problem. You are much better off, from a
> > > practical standpoint, learning to control what you see and hear rather
> > > than attempting to control others. 
> > I'm not sure what the above babble means.  
> 
> Hence your attempt to control others.
> 
> > I'm not sure you are either.
> 
> Hence your inability to understand the concept of "honor".
> 
> > > One does not need a school to see this, it sits under one's nose like
> > > a milk moustache.
> > This is the uneducated man's excuse.
> 
> "Education" has very little to do with knowledge and a lot more to do
> with external approval, in the sense you appear to be using it.
> "Indoctrination" and "Conditioning" are the two terms that best fit
> your apparent notion. 
> 
> We all know how far those have gotten us in the past 2000 years.
> One can see this "progress" by looking at the net's attempts to control
> Mr. Grubor...

Anyone exercising any attempts at "control" are giving justified
reason for their immediate elimination.

> ------
> Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
> Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
> 
> A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be abolished.
> 
> As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually stung to death
> by scorpions. 
> 
>

Grubby! Back under your rock!

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, aga wrote:

> Somebody censored the header in this article,
> and we put it back.  You know, that is the worst
> kind of censorship, when somebody attempts to avoid the issue.

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote:

> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:09:17 -0500 (EST)
> From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore ?
> 
> 
> Grubby! Back under your rock!
> 

FUCK YOU COCKSUCKER -- as long as you keep writing to be,
I will continue to rip a new asshole in the Faggot John Gilmore
who promotes PUNKs like you.

A 'punk' is a faggot pussy who is really NOT a man!

> On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
> 
> > Somebody censored the header in this article,
> > and we put it back.  You know, that is the worst
> > kind of censorship, when somebody attempts to avoid the issue.
> 

The faggot Gilmore does take it up the ass and also eat assholes, so
he should be added to the net.scum list at once.

-a

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

The following is truly noise.  Please ignore it and forgive me 
for playing with the animals.  They are just so much fun when 
they begin to froth at the mouth.  In some ways it's like picking 
at a scab to see what's underneath.

Grubby,

How do you like my NEW Subject line?  Now don't change it, 
because that would be "the worst kind of censorship."  ;-)
So why the big hard-on against John?  Did he turn down your 
advances because he's straight?  Latents who are in denial like
you are so pathetically impotent.  

By the way, I guess you've wimped out on your "threat" not to 
respond to posts CCed to the Cypherpunks list.  (Feel free not 
to respond to this post.  That'll teach me.)

I noted your kickboxing "challenge" in another post.  Obviously, 
you crave physical contact with other men, but cannot admit it to 
yourself, so you seek it through "combat."  Wouldn't Greco-Roman 
wrestling be more your style?  Why you've even got a Greek in 
your group who would probably love it.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~