Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!gam From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.flame Subject: Re: mod.all and net.fascism Message-ID: <385@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 00:56:57 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.385 Posted: Thu Oct 18 00:56:57 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Oct-84 04:56:04 EDT References: <1612@nsc.UUCP> <379@amdahl.UUCP> <1614@nsc.UUCP> Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 104 Xref: sun net.news.group:1968 net.flame:6215 > > == amdahl!gam (me) > == nsc!chuqui > > Sorry but I don't see it that way. Net.motss was suffering from extreme > > divergence of viewpoint, not garbage generated by assholes. > Another divergence of viewpoint here. Not.motss was set up so that the gay > people could have a place to discuss the issues surrounding being gay. > Unfortunately they have been harrassed by a number of people who keep > bringing up discussions of whether gay's SHOULD exist and force the readers > of the group to defend themselves instead of using the group to understand > themselves better. The majority of the readers of net.motss seem to be > tired of having deal with this harrassment and would like to use the group > for what it is defined as. You can call this a divergence of view if you > like, most of the readers see it as harrassment and as an inappropriate use > of the topic. The moderator is put there to keep things to a minimum. > Perhaps we need net.is_gay_perversion to keep those other types happy, or > even net.religion.is_gay_against_god... While there were the intolerant anti-gay types making appearances in net.motss, it wasn't that much. Further I am of the view that Ken Ardnt was actually a valuable contributor to that forum. He was one of the better read people in that group, and he was asking a lot of questions that people frequently could not answer; he was also a realist, in that he was not pretending that gay people were experiencing a New Era of Tolerance. He was also abrasively humorous, if one could not take it so personally. All I'm really flaming about, then, is how someone like Ken can be so easily dismissed as ``irrational'' (he wasn't), because people didn't like what he had to say. With the mod.all groups you sow the seeds of your own limitations. > > It amazes me how you redefine free speech (with all its problems) > > as censorship. > Free speech can be censorship. If I stand up to talk, I am exercising my > right to free speech. But if you want to talk as well, and I won't let you > because I'm exercising my right, am I not also infringing upon yours and > censoring you? If we BOTH talk and I talk louder, and I also not censoring > you? The problem is that usenet is not really a great medium for 'free > speech' because it is a dedicated line-- you can hear only one voice at a > time. If someone decides to use his right to the exclusion of others, there > isn't much that the listeners can do about it, and the moderators are one > way of helping to minimize this problem (just because you have the right to > talk doesn't mean we have the responsibility to listen). The analogy is imperfect (excercise left to the reader). > > As for "anything that forces people to unsubscribe to a group", that > > seems to include "anything that I don't want to read because I disagree > > with it." This is exactly what was/is happening in net.motss. > Maybe for you, but I don't think that is the majority viewpoint. With the > case of net.motss, many people simple get VERY tired of constantly having > their sexual alignments being challenged and bombarded.... > I think it is not so much a case > of people not wanting to hear other viewpoints but a case of > self-preservation -- there is a group of people who feel that any pro-gay > discussion is wrong and try to sabotage it at any opportunity. THEY are the > ones doing the censoring because they are the ones refusing to allow > disagreeing opinions to exist. But that was not happening. Other ideas and opinions were (loudy!) existant. Further, in Ken's case, he reversed the assumptions: people asserted that gayness was gayness was something you're born with, yet in a significant number of cases one's orientation can be changed. This example infuriated people so much... yet they wouldn't attempt to rebutt it -- OR EVEN READ THE STUDY THAT PRODUCED THE STATISTICS! Truly a sad state of affairs. Ken violates the rules of polite society and gentlemanly behavior. He probably doesn't even wear a tie. I dread the day we loose such people, even if they are offensive. > My hope is to remove as many of the 'automatic' n-key > messages from the group so that you can make intelligent choices about what > you want to read. I've found myself (and I'm not unique) going into n-key > mode-- there is so much stuff that I just 'n' everything until I realize > that I've moved past a couple of articles I DID want to see. If I reduce > the noise, I'll be more aware (and willing) to look at what is left. I see your point. There probably is a lot of noise in net.singles and a few other groups. And I have 'n'-ed overthings in a Pavlovian way only to discover I need to back up a few articles .... but this is not to be taken as an implicite approval of moderated groups. My case is against mod.motss and the motivations for its creation. I have not seen a need for it but rather a sickening attempt to censor what some people have to say. I'm not talking about the religious bozos, either. I have seen something in Ken Ardnt that facinates me, and I don't want to see him driven away. -- "Welcome to the Future -- it's just starting now..." Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This is just me talking. ]