From: dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: <None>
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:16:25 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1993Jan3.222739.456@colorado.edu>, 
paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Atharvan) writes:
>...... (DELETED)......
> Because (i) every day new authors turn up with more filth.
>         (ii) every day new topics are introduced and faught over which are
>              related to religion and race and caste and nation.
>             There is no one way to handle junk on sci.
>         (iii) The filth on sci prevents the quieter sort from posting and 
>               to remain silent spectators.
>          (iv) When you post you do not know, what kind of net.animal is going
>               to pick on you. Why would that bother you ?
>               Simple: Why do you respond when someone flames you ?
>           (v) The general reputation of sci and its traffic does not 
>               attract the attention serious issues should.
> 
>..... (DELETED)......
> 
> Again look at the original article. A panel of moderators was mentioned,
> not moderator in the singular. A panel presumably reduces the individual
> biases. Let me get this clear, I am in complete agreement with you about
> the ideal of "freedom of expression". In practice, in social forums, the
> parties involved are implicitly involved in a social contract. 
> If the "T.S. Eliot" society is holding a meeting to discuss the Four 
> Quartets it would be very bad form if a poetry-hater rushed in and said
> that Eliots mother was a prostitute. It is likely that the said individual
> would be prevented from continuing in the same vein. Why ?
> Because that group of people have come together in the social contract to 
> discuss Eliots poetry and in particular his series The Four Quartets.
> Not his mother. Or her Morals. But clearly the right to freedom of
> expression of the individual is affected. Or is it ?
> 
> The usenet is an anarchy. All controls are by numbers and net.democracy. 
> 
> ...... (DELETED).....
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> .    ~ ~                                                                     .
> .    o o      signito ergo sum.              paul chemmanoor.                .
> .     |    i sign therefore i am.            Computer Science department.    .
> .     =                                      Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.     .
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


        PAUL,

          I QUITE AGREE WITH YOU. YES, PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DISSOCIATE FROM
        MORONS LIKE DEB CHATTERJEE AND THE LIKE, SHOULD FOLLOW ST.PAUL. THE
        ROAD TO SALVATION AND ETERNAL BLISS GOES THRU' CU, BOULDER 8-).

          HOWEVER, WE INDIAN (LOW-LIFE AND ABUSIVE, BONEHEADS ACCORDING
        TO T.S.ELIOT ADMIRERS), *DO HAVE THE RIGHT* TO USE EQUALLY BAD 
        LANGUAGE WHEN SOME PAKISTANI *B****** ABUSES SOMEONE'S (IN THIS CASE
        MINE) MOTHER IN HORRIBLE TERMS. YES, WE SHOULD DO IT FROM THE *SAME*
        PODIUM WHERE THE ABUSIVE PAKISTANI HURLED HIS ABUSES AND IS TRYING TO
        GET THE BETTER OFF PAUL AND HIS ELITIST FRIENDS DISCUSSING THE MOST
        DISGUSTING CHARACTER LIKLE DEEPAK BOSE AND DEB CHATTERJEE OVER A CUP
        OF ENGLISH TEA IN THE SLEEPY BOULDER TOWN. PERHAPS I HAVE NOT LEARNT
        TO ADMIRE T.S.ELIOT'S BRITISH DECENCY, BUT, I SURE KNOW THAT IT IS 
        PROBABLY UN-HINDU TO ALLOW A MAD DOG (S.O.B) TO GET THE BETTER OF YOU.

         I HOPE THAT THIS IS *NOT* ASKING TOO MUCH. POLARIZATIONS ALWAYS SHALL
        EXIST AND THE CONCERNED PERSON COULD CHOOSE TO EXERCISE HIS INTELLECT
        BY ADDING MY NAME TO HIS/ HER KILL F. UNITED STATES IS A FREE COUNTRY.
        HERE T.S.ELIOT IS APPRECIATED, BUT, THEY ALSO DROVE OUT THE HYPOCRITES
        FROM THE LAND OF T.S.ELIOT AT THE BOSTON TEA PARTY ? AM I WRONG PAUL ?

         THE BILL OF RIGHTS, MAY BE INVOKED TO CURRY SITUATIONS IN MINE AND
        DEEPAK'S FAVOR. HOWEVER, IT IS ENTIRELY UPTO YOU TO DEPRECATE THESE
        DIE-HARD ANTI-PAKISTANI "RUSTICS", WITH A CHOLERIC TEMPER AND MORE
        HONESTY. TO CASTIGATE COWARD IDIOTS, WHO ARE THERE TO INSULT AND STILL 
        PROUDLY MOVE AROUND - GETTING ACCOLADES AND WARM KISSES, IS WHAT I
        STAND FOR. PROBABLY AGE HAS TAUGHT YOU TO REASON WITH CAUTION BUT
        I HAVE CHOSEN TO GO DOWN THE ABYSS OF DESTRUCTION. IF THAT HAPPENS
        I SHALL NOT CRY LOUD FOR PAUL'S HELP. FOR PAUL MAYBE JUDAS ISCARIOT !

        IN PASSING, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU MIGHT CHOOSE TO READ THE 
        FOLLOWING BOOKS - THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY WOULD HELP ELUCIDATING
        THE RATIONALE  BEHIND ALL THE RIGMAROLE AND DIATRIBE FROM AN ELITIST
        VIEWPOINT. THESE ARE:

        (1) Niccolo Machiavelli, " The Prince ", Dover, 1992.

        (2) Fyodor Dostoyevsky, " Notes from Underground ", Dover 1992

        (3) Kafka, " Metamorphosis " (I don't have the exact details at hand).

          - with homages and christmas regards,

                     deb chatterjee
                   (A GOOD SAMARITAN)

         P.S: The Two-pence opinion of this "net-animal" is that it suits
              those who have spent their lives in an airplane to describe that
              how "poetic" it looks when the plane flies above the clouds to
              a worry-smitten, middle-income father who probably has to sell
              his blood to get medicine for his only dying daughter. (This
              incident was reported in The Statesman, Calcutta, 1989.) 





-