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]