Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
From: chabot@amber.DEC (L S Chabot)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: mod.all and net.fascism
Message-ID: <3950@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 09:48:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3950
Posted: Thu Oct 18 09:48:33 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Oct-84 06:11:45 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 62

David DiGiacomo said: Can someone convince me that the "new order" mod groups 
are not an example of net.fascism?
?  ==  >>
>> No, I can't.  My gripe is the new 'mod.motss', being created because some
>> contributors say things that some of the readers don't want to read; not that
>> the contributions aren't worthwhile, but if you don't adhere to the new 
>> liberal sensibilities you apparently have to be muzzled. 

Phil Ngai  ==  >
> Why do you go around telling other people what to do? If you want anarchy
> and like reading junk, then continue to read net.motss. I don't see how
> mod.motss hurts you as long as net.motss exists. 

Phil is demonstrating a typical stupidity of those blinded by the evil of
tolerance: not seeing the danger with those who *might* disagree with you! :-)
I mean, isn't it obvious to everyone, that if there are some out there who
disagree with me and choose to continue to live their lives and follow their
own wrong thinking--why, this is an infringement on my rights, an upsetting of
my values, and if Congress in any way refuses to write laws against these
evil-doers then they're part of the problem too.  Clearly.  These people should
be locked up.  :-) 

> Clearly there are people who want it, for someone took the trouble to create 
> it and moderate it.  I even see people post to it, this might mean people 
> read it too. 

This is exactly the problem!!! :-)  For instance, I am morally opposed to the
mythical newsgroup mod.myth, and it's existence I take as a personal insult.
It's obvious.  I complain and complain and still they persist!  My tax dollars
are being wasted!  :-)  What's wrong with net.myth!  Why do they go to all this
trouble just to impose their existence on my awareness?!  Plus, and this is the
biggest, I have a deep abiding need to weekly post an article to as many people
as possible a message containing words to the effect of: 

    You know in your heart that Cthulthu hates you for your evil 
    wrong-god-loving ways and everybody knows you mate in the dark with 
    dead gerbils, so how can you continue to justify your existence, 
    you shitheads you! 

(And you know, nobody ever answers me, so you know they know I'm right!)  The
existence of mod.myth means people have a choice in the matter--I could be
losing my audience!  mod.myth!  Frankly, I'm not so hot on net.myth!  I think
these things should be kept locked in the attic.  Not a fit topic for
undergraduates and other children. 

I'm sick and tired of these lacy-pantied liberal sensitivities about politeness.
:-)  No, don't try to reason with me, my mind is closed.  Has been for years.
Got to be too expensive to keep up.

> mod.motss seems to fill a demand, why can't you let it be? If it stops 
> filling a need that will become apparent too and then you can remove it. 
> Meanwhile, I think it's a good idea.

You would.  Good Grid!  Is there anything more offensive than someone
reasonable in net.flame!  I find this persecution by those who insist on 
thinking to be morally objectionable. :-)

L S Chabot
UUCP:	...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ARPA:	...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
USFail:    DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA  01752
shadow:	[ISSN 0018-9235 v21 #10 p81, bottom vt100, col3, next to next to last]