Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!gsmith From: gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: Can We Shut Up Now? Message-ID: <635@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Thu, 18-Dec-86 11:30:31 EST Article-I.D.: cartan.635 Posted: Thu Dec 18 11:30:31 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Dec-86 00:15:25 EST References: <8612080908.AA08813@jade.berkeley.edu> <517@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> <568@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> <6484@alice.uUCp> Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) Organization: Math Dept. UC Berkeley Lines: 59 Keywords: e-mail In article <6484@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >Mr. Smith, in an ad-hominem reply to my comments on his regarding >Harnad, states quite clearly that I believe in censorship. He also >quotes my words, which advocate complaining to the source >you don't like, rather than to their boss, or what >have you. As I pointed out to "jj" when s/he e-mailed me a reply (see that up there? E-mail?) I assumed that s/he was talking about mailing to "the boss, or what have you" because (key point coming up!) that is what this whole discussion has been about. If anyone wants to abuse me in e-mail, fire away. But don't write to my system manager with complaints! > This, regardless of what Mr. Smith says, is >not censorship, it is simply expecting the writer to take >responsiblity for that which is written. I DIDN'T say that. Gosh-this-is-stupid. >The statement that I advocate censorship is a straw-man argument, >clear as simple, and is an utter mistatement. The mistatement is the one you made, which I interpreted in the obvious way given the context. So what are YOU so sore about?? >It appears that such mistatement is part and parcel of this entire >and * deliberately fabricated * discussion of censorship. "Deliberately fabricated?" Did I fabricate the fact that people have written to my sysadmin? Did I fabricate the fact that as I result I have been accused of things I didn't do? Did I fabricate the fact that as a result certain persons have been (temporarily, I think) muzzled? If you don't know what the facts are, then shut up. The censorship is real, and your calling me a liar is not especially helpful. >Furthermore, Mr. Smith states again, and again incorrectly, >that discussion of this fabricated crises should happen in >news.misc. It is about the net. What IS your problem? If you ever get censored, I don't want to hear about it. That's fair, right? > Given the nature of this discussion, its obvious >overtones of political and personal philosophy, and such, it is >clear that it does NOT belong in any news.* group, but that it >rather belongs in talk.flame (if such exists), talk.politics.>or perhaps some other group of which I am blissfully unaware in which >individuals demonstrate their pre-primate ancestry. Talk.origins, I suppose? By the way, you are maintaining a remarkably high level of inconsistency by both calling me an ape an a liar AND insisting on a high standard of net civility. I'm not sure you even know what you think or what you want. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Logicians are apt to call this an *argumentum ad hominem*. Quite so: .. I am addressing *humans*. I am addressing neither dogs nor logicians.