Julie was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:08:42 -0500, "Julie Pascal"
wrote:


"tj" wrote in message
news:J1Thb.729033$YN5.649505@sccrnsc01...

"Julie Pascal" wrote in message
...

Which newsgroup? Crossposting is *always* rude.

I'm sorry, Julie, but that is not correct. Crossposting is and has
always
been part of the design of Usenet. It was designed that way to
allow
discussions (and even arguments) to happen between groups. Using
that
design, in and of itself, rude. It is using the Usenet as it was
designed
to be used. You may not like it. You may not like the groups to
which he
posted. That does not make his behavior rude either. If the thread
is
offensive to you (for any reason).... well, that's what filters are
for.
If
you're using MS Outlook Express, you can simply click on Ignore
Thread.

How about...crossposting should always be undertaken with great
restraint and much thought?

Look up the term, "netnazi."

Crossposting *is* rude.

It is ignorant of you to say so. It is nothing of the sort. If you
continue I will demonstrate rudeness for you.

I know that you
understand that usenet has evolved and grown in a very organic way.

Not only does she understand it, she either knows or deeply senses
what happens when media is controlled by twits. It soon becomes
controlled through political means and that is the end.

Such attempts against the Internet have been tried. Even the far right
wing ninnies have had to back down over the extreme backlash. I do
believe a few benevolent hackers (not evil crackers) have dealt with
those in government that would try and take control of the net.

You do know that the Bush Whitehouse was taken down some months back
with a very successful Denial of Service attack, do you not?

The
intention of crossposting evidenced by the built in ability to do so
proves
nothing at all about the social acceptability of the practice.

The claim that communication practices have to be socially acceptable
to be allowed and supported is about as fascist as one can get.

No. This is not a neat little afternoon Tea. This is as close to the
real world and what goes on in the darker recesses of folks minds (you
demonstrate it very nicely....brrrrrrr)as one an get.

It is a valuable tool to hear yet another facet of human viewpoints.
And thankfully you can't do a damn thing about it but whine and prance
about with your tight ass and your nose in the air.

Yes, I can ignore the thread.

Why didn't you? If I am rude you are expanding on it with more
rudeness of your own, even when thoughtfully corrected by someone that
knows and understands USENET. The openess between ngs isn't an
accident. It's an invitation to be used for the purposes of
enlightenment.

Yes, I can (and will) ignore the ignorant
and offensive individual who is more interested in being clever and
double speaking than in discussion.

Can I help you learn how to use your twit filter? I'd be most happy
to.

I present NO danger to anyone or anything, and certainly not to the
freewheeling nature of this wonderful tool that expands the capacity
of humans to communicate as they have NEVER been able to do before.

You, if you had your way, would present a serious danger to it.

(Debate is about winning on
technicalities and I'm *not* impressed.)

That can be ONE of the ways of debating. I'm running into a lot here.
It usually takes the form of offering a lame and inaccurate metaphore,
than extrapolating my meaning to be the meaning the opponents wants it
to be so he or she can make was appears, on first glance, to be a
valid and defensible argument against something (created by him or
her) that everyone would tend to be in agreement about.

Even I would agree with the Strawman presented, had that been my
original argument...but it isn't, most often.

There are other equally stupid ways of playing with logic and words,
and one is to call the other ignorant and offensive.

Now if you called me a name that was true and the majority agreed I'd
probably give you some credance...but I think, dispite the fact I
offend YOU, I do not offend everyone, and I am certainly anything but
ignorant.

In fact I probably just know too much for you to deal with.

So, I contend, you are projecting your lack on to me.

And I find YOU offensive.

But I don't think everyone agrees with me so I'm not going to just
label you "offensive," I'm going to qualify it as just MY opinion.

Now for the ignorant part that I think you are projecting on me from
your own lack of knowledge.

Read any good books on child development lately? I've contributed to
many. You'd do well to look at what I claim in light of not your bias
of religiousity, but in light of what you might expect from a good
book on child development...and please...don't cite Dobson. Deliver
us.

How he ever got a doctorate and became an expert in child development
is beyond me.

That this group (and the others) is not moderated also makes NO
difference to the acceptability of the behavior.

Really? Then why would USENET have created to two kinds of forums. If
moderated forums, newsgroups, were so content could be controlled,
what would be the obvious purpose of having unmoderated newsgroups?

So little netnazi's could practice their twittery perversions?

Indeed, only the
voluntary good behavior of individuals makes Usenet useable.

How do I, or anyone's posting, stop YOU from using USENET?

Or make it unusable? You can always filter me out. Please do if it
helps you maintain your sense of safety and order. How retentive.

Very
few newsgroups welcome advertisements.

Do you know why?

Even fewer newsgroups
welcome gif files.

Do you know why?

Pretending that "this group is not moderated so
I can post what and how I like" is some sort of *high*ground* is
not the least reasonable.

You are assigning me reasons and motives I have not evidenced in any
way. I am not pretending this is not a moderated group, it is. And
that claim is followed by the fact that unmoderated means attempted
moderation, such as you try, is not going to be supported by the
authority of those that put this service up, Google or USENET, either
one.

If you wish to stop me or restrain me contact them. Try. See what
happens.

Voluntary good behavior is why this whole
*thing* can even function.

I, moi, am causing this ng to lose its functioning? How powerful you
make me. Others don't see me as powerful at all.

Cross-posting is considered rude unless
the, extremely limited, cross-posts are considered helpful by most
people on both groups.

Ah, the "bothways" argument. "You can cross post but I get to judge if
it's limited enough or not."

The "limit" of four cross-posted newsgroups
is the *maximum* and not the "recommended, everyone is fine with
this" number. And even that rule is voluntary.

No. There is an absolute five addy cross post limit on Google. I think
it extends to USENET as well. I post through Google.

"Rules" are not voluntary. If they are they aren't rules. A breakable
rule is called an agreement. When it has an unbreakable clause it's
then a rule.

If he had picked a gazillion unrelated ngs and the thread had
little to do
with any of the ngs' themes, then you would have a point. This is
not the
case here. The fact that the groups included may (or may not) have
diametrically opposed viewpoints is also irrelevant. If people
here only
want a select viewpoint to be included in the conversations, then
they are
using the wrong medium. They should be making use of
invitation-only
email
lists.

Seriously, Ted. Have *I* ever been unwelcoming of a good lively
debate or argument?

Yes. That is what you are doing right now. Can't speak about your
past. I haven't bothered to Google on your addy yet.

This is not the source of my objections.

I'm not sure of the source of your objections. So far I haven't seen
any that don't reflect either your shortage of courage or your
determination to netnanny the ng.

And
I'm sorry not to have responded to your earlier post in reply to
Kanga
because I agree there are some obvious faults in certain criticisms
of
schools. But I'm selling my house and getting ready to move once
again and I haven't felt like I could be thoughtful in my response
when
I feel like I've got about two neurons to rub together.

Thank you for the homilies. It makes me feel much warmer toward you.

But in the end you still are one of those I consider dangerous to free
speech and the unique tool that USENET is in exercising that.

I'm headed off to my parent's house for the day. Maybe this
evening I'll feel a little less foggy.

We can certainly hope so. I wouldn't mind going over this all again
with you when you are less foggy. You might come to reconsider wanting
to censor and limit my free speech on the chance you might be setting
a trend that you would fall victim to next.

That's kinda how it works when someone's rights are met with Obdurate
bias.


--Julie


Have a good rest at your folks house. Our daughter is here doing the
same. Nice kid. Makes a fortune. Maybe when I get really old and
stubborn she'll look after me. Being as neither of her parents every
spanked her and punishment was the last thing that would have been
considered when teaching her I just think she might be willing.

How are you raising yours?

Kane

"Ray Drouillard" wrote

It looks like one of those crusaders who
google for certain key words and start
stirring up the mud.

On Sept 24, in msg no.
Jenny Harkins wrote:

:: That reminds me of the time I broke my
:: oldest daughter's jaw for talking back.

....and not a peep from Kane. Of course, it didn't contain the word he
Googles.


but,but...
Jon