From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:53:59 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul28.164618.14879@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.143312.21954@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>>
>>>All or most of language is metaphorical but there's a reason for
>>>metaphor.
>>
>>Yes, it's to give us the ability to express *new* concepts, not to
>>express old ones (at least, not outside of art).
>
>Oh?  Are you going to enforce the perimeter of "art?"  

No, just point it out so others can see art's boundaries for themselves.

>
>Among other things, unix is literature...art.

Oh, boy. Now Ed confuses art and literature. Not all literature is art,
Ed. Literature (the written word) can exist for its own sake (art) or
for some other purpose (not art). Upon reflection, you will find that,
indeed, all art stands on its own, for its own sake.

>Its use of "kill" files
>is therefore open to psychoanalysis.

No, it's not.

>Among other things, programming is
>writing.  I know that certain parties would have us believe that
>programming is something else, perhaps the language of the gods.  But
>nope, programming is writing.

Right, but again, not all writing is art.

>Written by human beings who sometimes
>have the urge to kill.

So?

>Indeed, much code for the network originated in
>war-making "defense" applications and is doubly freighted with a
>murderous purpose.

Not mine. Or is Usenet primarily a DOD project. Stop trying to obscure
this discussion with non-sequiturs.

>
>>
>>>It's well known that computers can become a substitute for
>>>real-life,
>>
>>Go into a little more detail than that or I (and others, I hope) will
>>publicly assume (rightfully) that you mean that CPU time can feed,
>>clothe and shelter humans by itself. You're making yourself look silly
>>again, this time by making blatant assertions that depend on such
>>phantom authorities as "...it's well-known that...".
>
>No, I mean that for Weizenbaum's "subculture of the compulsive
>programmer", developing code can be an outlet for all sorts of impulses,
>including destructive impulses.  

So can anything else. What does that prove?

>
>>
>>>and surely the satisfaction one takes in a kill file is
>>>related to the satisfaction one feels in destructive behavior (there! I
>>>showed him, he's in my kill file.)
>>
>>The term "destructive behavior", the way you used it, is too wide a term
>>to mean much of anything. You imply that said "destructive behavior" is
>>somehow bad, but no one can make an actual value judgment about it until
>>we know what is being "destroyed". So, you have said nothing about the
>>"destructive" nature of kill files.
>
>Bzzt.  I did not "imply that said" (sic.) You read that into the post.

In a previous post, you implied that being "shocked and hurt" was an
appropriate response to the "metaphorical murder" implicit in being
included in another's kill file. That is how you implied that the
"destructive behavior" you were arguing about was bad.

>I don't condemn all destructive behavior as bad, anymore than I condemn
>all censorship.  I metaphorically "killed" Henry Schaffer in retaliation
>for his terroristic lie.  

What lie was that? Enlighten us, please, o keeper of all wisdom. ;-)

>
>What I am saying (once more: this is like pulling teeth) is that the
>defenders of "freedom" pose as nondestructive friends of free speech who
>would not harm speakers, and that this is a false posture that is belied
>by their use of kill files and other gambits that display intense
>hostility towards open dialog.

Using kill files is ignoring, it is not censorship. You have demonstrated
nothing, Ed, and you are too intelligent not to realize this.

>
>>because it is fiat currency - it has no intrinsic value. Growing more
>>food does not diminish the nutritional value of the food that I already
>>have.
>
>Unfortunately, speech is much closer to money than it is to food, for
>(considerations of factory farms and "junk" food aside), food almost
>always has SOME value, whereas much speech is of zero or negative value.

Fiat currency has no intrinsic value, it is a store of value *only*.
That's why inflating it debases it. The value of speech is the value
of the ideas it transmits. These, by nature, can be copied over and
over and cannot, by nature, be debased.

Learn what fiat currency is, and learn what ideas are. You really
need to know.

>Surely, in your mind, MY speech does not have value; the fact that I
>believe it does does not entail that YOU believe it does.

Assuming I believe your speech is worthless, what do differences in
individuals' hierarchies of values have to do with the debasement of
ideas?

.sig