Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!pesnta!altos86!elxsi!styx!mcb From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: "Abuses" of the net Message-ID: <21076@styx.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Dec-86 16:14:08 EST Article-I.D.: styx.21076 Posted: Sun Dec 14 16:14:08 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 07:28:01 EST References: <21062@styx.UUCP> <678@uwmacc.UUCP> Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore CA Lines: 43 In article <678@uwmacc.UUCP> anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) writes: > In article <21062@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > > > I'd appreciate it if Mr. Mozes, Mr. G. W. Smith, Mr. Harnad, and Mr. > > Ellis could conduct their pissing match by private correspondence > > or even in talk.philosophy.misc rather than this newsgroup. > > > Michael C. Berch > > News/mail administrator, styx > > Mr. Berch is entitled to his own opinion, but since his signature tells > us he is a news/mail administrator, maybe his vote counts for more than > one. It could also be that my vote counts for less than one. > Be that as it may, it has not seemed to me that the persons referred > to were carrying on a "pissing match" at all. Still less does it seem > to me appropriate to move the discussion they and others have been > having to another group. Indeed what I find least comprehensible in > Berch's request is its timing; it's been very quiet on this topic for > some time now. I was despairing of ever hearing another word about it. I am mystified by this. I posted my article after wading through eight or ten articles of the type I referred to. Today there were four more, sandwiched around Mr. Anderson's article. Perhaps uwmacc is simply not receiving these articles, in which case Mr. Anderson's remarks might make sense. His lengthy diatribe notwithstanding, the issue is not censorship nor freedom of expression. The articles to which I referred, and which are still in full flower, are puerile exchanges of the form "X hates Objectivists. No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't. Well, Y is a Randroid then. No he isn't. Yes he is. Does this belong in talk.philosophy.misc? No it doesn't. Yes it does. No it doesn't. But Z thinks that Objectivists should be banned from the net. No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't. But Y is an Objectivist, so when he says 'abc', he really means 'def.' No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't." If Mr. Anderson (or any of the rest of you) can find anything of meaning in these articles, please clue me in. Perhaps I'm missing something of lasting importance. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb